Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL. [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 13 June.

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered upon Thursday 13 June.

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 13 June.

Mr. Speaker: The remaining Bills have blocking motions. With the leave of the House, I shall put them together.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 13 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Local Government Finance

Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently imprisoned for non-payment of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Prison service central records do not show this information on a daily basis and may, therefore, be incomplete. But we are aware of three people currently in prison as a result of refusal to pay after a means inquiry established that they were able to pay their community charge.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) asked me to make a statement. My only statement can be that people who can pay, should pay.

Mr. Brown: Whatever the numbers, clearly those people are political prisoners—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member must put his question in his own way.

Mr. Brown: As I said, this is a political issue because yesterday at Margate, Mrs. Ruby Haddow was imprisoned, along with her husband, simply because she had not paid her poll tax. If that had happened in South Africa or eastern Europe there would have been a public outcry. It is disgraceful that there is no public outcry. More important, let us remember that that would not happen in Scotland because the law is different. It is a north-south issue. If we are talking about the Government being even-handed, why can people in England and Wales be gaoled when people in Scotland cannot? Surely it is now time for an amnesty for everyone who has not paid the poll tax, particularly for those in gaol.

Mr. Patten: Those who can pay, should pay, and that applies as much north of the border as south of the border. The hon. Gentleman might spend his time more profitably trying to persuade his local authority, Lothian regional council, which has a disgraceful record on collecting community charge payments, to do as well as Labour-controlled Fife region. South of the border, the hon. Gentleman might speak to a few Labour authorities, such as Lambeth, Newham and Islington, which failed to collect their community charge payments in exactly the same way as they failed to collect their rates.

Mr. Tracey: The figure that my right hon. Friend has given will be read with some interest. It is viewed with interest by me, because I drove past Wandsworth prison last weekend and saw a crowd of people protesting against such imprisonment. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there is and will be no question of an amnesty for those people who have not paid, because such failure to pay is viewed with disgust by all right-thinking members of society?

Mr. Patten: I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), whose question I welcome, that under a Conservative Government there is no possibility


whatever of any amnesty ever being declared for anyone who breaks the law. Rather than people waving banners outside Wandsworth prison, perhaps one day we shall see outside magistrates courts ordinary decent people who pay their community charge waving banners that say, "Those who can pay, should pay."

Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that there are five such people in prison and that the sixth person was Mrs. Ruby Haddow of Ramsgate? She was the first woman to be gaoled for failure to pay and she is in Holloway. She has three daughters. Her only income is child benefit. Her husband came out of prison on Friday. He is an electrician and was made redundant in October last year. They have no income to pay the poll tax, yet she is serving 14 days and is being punished for her poverty. As not even I believe that this Government seriously contemplate gaoling the 16 million people who have not paid all of last year's poll tax, why do they not follow the logic of abolishing the poll tax and abolish the enforcement procedures that are putting people in prison for poverty?

Mr. Patten: No, certainly not. For people who do not pay their community charge bills, there is an exhaustive procedure which magistrates courts must follow and it includes a means inquiry. Courts alone decide who goes to gaol, not Ministers.

Burglaries

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the proportion of domestic burglaries which do not involve forced entry.

Mr. John Patten: In 1990, 26 per cent. of domestic burglaries in the Metropolitan police district involved no forced entry. Figures released today by the Metropolitan police show that that figure has increased. Comparable figures for the whole of England and Wales are not available for 1990, but 18 per cent. of burglary victims interviewed for the 1988 British Crime Survey said that their homes had not been left secure when they went out.

Mr. Brown: Does not that reply clearly show that people can do much to secure their homes? From the statistic that my right hon. Friend quoted, it seems that roughly one in four or five burglaries occurs as a result of the fault of the individual householder not securing the property. Is there not a way round that by giving much greater support to neighbourhood watch schemes? Is it not outrageous that some Labour local authorities refuse to allow neighbourhood watch scheme stickers and posters to be displayed on street furniture?

Mr. Patten: Alas, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I normally perform later at night when you are not in the Chair. Alas, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is perfectly true that by joining a neighbourhood watch scheme and taking simple precautions, such as property marking and ensuring that good locks are fitted to doors, people can do a great deal to prevent burglary. It is impossible to make a home 100 per cent. safe, just as wearing a seat belt—something everyone should do—cannot make the wearer absolutely safe in a road accident. However, as my hon. Friend said, neighbourhood watch performs a valuable function. It is very sad that the Labour party nationally has not been

able to persuade some Labour-controlled local councils, such as Cleveland, to take the neighbourhood watch movement and support of it more seriously.

Mr. Sheerman: The British public are sick to death of the Government trying to shuffle off responsibility for rising crime rates on to the victims. Of course there is an element of carelessness among the public and we want people to be more security conscious, but we have had 12 years of astounding rises in crime. The Government cannot shirk the responsibility for that or for underfunding crime prevention initiatives. Why do the Government not once in a while back the police instead of stopping the police doing their job—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The police are crying out for resources to help neighbourhood watch, but will not get them from this Government.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman can do joined-up shouting, but he cannot do much joined-up thinking, as his question showed. When I gave him the opportunity, he lamentably failed to respond to my point about the need to talk to Labour authorities which do not back neighbourhood watch schemes. This Government have given more resources to the police than any other Government this century. There has been a 52 per cent. rise in resources for law and order under this Government. Finally with regard to crime prevention, according to the Labour party's policy document, Labour intends to give responsibility for crime prevention to local authorities. Tell that to the people of Lambeth and Liverpool.

Crime Prevention

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of crime prevention week.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The objective of crime prevention week was to raise national awareness of the need for positive crime prevention in our community. As such, we believe that it was successful. There were more than 6,000 local events involving many organisations and individuals and, I am glad to say, in many cases many young people. It attracted a great deal of positive press and broadcast cover.

Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the staff of Crime Concern, an organisation located in my constituency, on their success in helping to organise the week? Will he also take this chance to congratulate the private sector, which responded in full measure to the call on its generosity to support the week? Will he ensure that Crime Concern continues to have the resources to enable it to do its important work?

Mr. Baker: Crime Concern has been a successful initiative undertaken by the Government. During crime prevention week it raised over £300,000. In addition, the Home Office secured support from businesses of over £1 million. Businesses throughout the country contibuted upwards of £5 million to support initiatives in schools, youth clubs and probation services. That is an involvement and commitment of business, with the police, in fighting crime.

Mrs. Mahon: Is the Secretary of State aware that during crime prevention week the crime prevention panel in Calderdale met? I have here the headline that resulted from that meeting. It says that there are 66 crimes every day in Calderdale. There has been a massive increase in every reportable crime. When will the Home Secretary fund West Yorkshire police force and the other police forces properly so that we can have community policemen and the public can be protected from such horror stories?

Mr. Baker: I remind the hon. Lady that in the past 12 years we have increased the resources of the police by more than any previous Government. The increase in expenditure has been some 53 per cent. We have increased the size of police forces in Britain by 27,000. We took over from a Government who held back police recruiting and who left a police force that was under establishment by several thousand.

Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if people were less careless and locked the doors of their houses and cars, crime figures would come down?

Mr. Baker: My hon. and learned Friend is right. The figures announced today and those that were announced earlier show that many burglaries take place on private property where doors and windows are unlocked and that in a quarter of all car crimes doors have been left unlocked. The obvious message is that people must look after their property better. That is a sensible message to put across.

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary properly and rightly congratulated Crime Concern on its work. Neighbourhood watch is also important in the prevention of crime. Does the Home Secretary agree with Crime Concern that what is holding back neighbourhood watch is inadequate resources from the Home Office for the police?

Mr. Baker: There has been an increase to more than 19,000 neighbourhood watch schemes. I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is a late convert to them. I hope that he will ask all Labour authorities to put neighbourhood watch leaflets and pamphlets through doors and posters on street furniture. I sometimes wonder why the right hon. Gentleman is so half-hearted in his support for the forces of law and order.

Right to Silence

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to change the right to silence for an accused person.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The opportunities available for an accused person to state his position and how far the courts may draw proper inferences from his failure to take advantage of them will be among the matters to be considered by the royal commission on criminal justice and we should await its findings.

Mr. Riddick: May I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has set up the royal commission and that it will be able to consider this issue, especially as the police are becoming increasingly worried about the way in which criminals abuse the right to silence? Is it not the case that the right to silence helps suspects who have something to

hide? Should not courts and juries be able to draw an inference from the fact that a defendant is not prepared to say what he was doing or where he was at a given time?

Mr. Baker: There are many views about the right to silence. Some representations that we have had claim that it should be kept as it is, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the police believe that the right to silence is being abused in certain cases. Courts cannot draw to the attention of the jury the fact that, in excercising his or her right to silence, the accused may not be answering any questions during the whole process of the investigation. Nor can the court make any comment on that. The royal commission will have to address those matters and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall draw his question to the attention of the royal commission.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary accept that an abridgement of the right to silence would be an attack on the presumption of innocence which, for a very long time, has been the foundation of the criminal law and the protection of the individual in this country?

Mr. Baker: The royal commission must address that issue. There are two clear views about it—the hon. Gentleman's and that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should be deeply ashamed that although the right of silence in England has properly been subject to detailed scrutiny before any consideration has been given to taking it away, in Northern Ireland it was taken away without proper discussion or inquiry under the Order in Council procedure?

Mr. Baker: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland explained, the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 was introduced to meet the urgent and special circumstances of Northern Ireland. I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue must be considered, and it is right that the royal commission should do so.

Mr. Trimble: Does the Home Secretary recall that when the right to silence was modified in Northern Ireland under the legislation to which he referred, an undertaking was given that parallel legislation would be introduced speedily in England and Wales? Has any study been made of the effects of the modification of the right to silence in Northern Ireland? I am confident that if such a study were made, it would show that the modification has not had the alarmist effects that have been mentioned, but has proved to be a modest and useful measure. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the longer equivalent legislation for England and Wales is delayed, the more opportunity there will be for ill-intentioned people to suggest that some major, unacceptable change has been made in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Baker: We have certainly observed what has happened in Northern Ireland and I agree with the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman has drawn from the practice there. As I said, this is a matter for the royal commission and I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to its attention.

Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the 1967 royal commission report recommended the amendments that have now been made in Northern Ireland. His predecessor commissioned a report on the right to silence and possible alterations to it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot wait for the commission's report and that it is time that victims of rape giving evidence in the Crown court should not be confronted with allegations of consent from an accused who refused to say anything in the police station when questioned six months earlier?

Mr. Baker: That is one aspect, and an example of the way in which the right to silence can be abused. Another is that the accused can simply stare at the wall and refuse to answer any questions of any sort for months on end, yet that fact cannot be drawn to the attention of the court. Those are matters of concern and are covered by the terms of the royal commission. I shall draw to its attention the views of my hon. Friend, who has taken a great interest in the matter for some years.

West Yorkshire Police

Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to meet the chief constable of West Yorkshire police to discuss the reduction in the number of police officers in West Yorkshire.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): My right hon. Friend has no present plans to meet the chief constable.

Mr. Lofthouse: That is most regrettable. The Minister will be aware that to avoid being poll-tax capped, West Yorkshire police have fixed their budget in accordance with the tender criteria of the Department of the Environment. Is he aware that as a result, now, only two months into this financial year, there are vacancies for 66 police officers, 15 traffic wardens, 95 civilian staff and one assistant chief constable in that force and that those vacancies cannot be filled? It is anticipated that by the end of the financial year, there will be a staff shortage in that force of 500, both police and civilian. Considering the 27 per cent. increase in crime last year and an anticipated similar increase this year, surely the Home Secretary has an obligation to intervene and assist that authority in attempting to avoid a breakdown in law and order in West Yorkshire.

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my noble Friend the Minister responsible for the police gave the various metropolitan authorities written advice that they should maintain their police strength at the authorised establishment level. Even if the resultant budgets had then exceeded the provisional capping criteria, it would not have led to automatic capping. Each budget is examined on its merits and West Yorkshire would have been capped only if there were scope for savings or greater efficiency in other areas of its operation. That clear message was sent from my right hon. Friend with the full agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I am sorry that the West Yorkshire authority did not take heed of that advice.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that I have in my possession a letter from a superintendent of the West

Yorkshire police, in which he says that staffing difficulties facing the police may have had a bearing on the difficulties that arose in the investigation of a crime referred to me in a complaint by a constituent? Is he further aware that the letter also states that unless action is taken to resolve the financial difficulties of West Yorkshire police as a matter or urgency, the situation can only get worse? Is it not indicative of the seriousness of the situation that a police superintendent puts such comments in a letter to a Member of Parliament? When will the Minister act on this issue and treat it as seriously as it deserves?

Mr. Lloyd: Obviously, I am not aware of that letter, as the hon. Gentleman did not send it to me. There may be cases in West Yorkshire where there are problems caused by a manpower shortage because the authority did not heed the advice of my right hon. Friend to bring the numbers up to the level of the establishment that he recommended.

Drugs

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives he intends to take with respect to drugs sales and abuse.

Mr. John Patten: As I announced last month, we will plough back drugs money confiscated here under international agreements into the fight against drug misuse. We intend to establish more local drug prevention teams, including teams in Salford and Manchester, as part of the drugs prevention initiative. The first priority of the new national criminal intelligence service is to be drugs.

Mr. Lloyd: In welcoming that statement, may I add that the ultimate victims of drugs in our society are not only those who use and abuse them, but communities whose areas are blighted by drugs and associated crime? Does the Minister accept that the view of many people in the areas that supply drugs is that drugs are not being given the priority that they should have by the Government and society in general? Even this week, the Secretary of State for Health told the House that drugs were not a priority for health initiatives. Will the Minister assure us that drugs are central to the Government's thinking and that they must have priority not only in the Home Office but throughout the Government, so that the attack on them is consistent and sustained? If drugs are not given such a priority we shall simply not begin to push back the scourge that they are causing in those communities.

Mr. Patten: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. I know of his long-standing interest in those issues, which he had the chance to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 30 April. We wish to do all we can to ensure that drugs policy has a proper standing in all Government Departments. I also want people in the Manchester area to be helped, which is why we intend to try to set up in the area one of our new drugs initiative teams concerned with prevention. However, that requires the co-operation of the local community, which I know concerns the hon. Gentleman. Any help that he can give me in working with local people to find the right place to put those drug prevention teams would be welcomed, and I shall be happy to discuss the issue with him.

Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Home Office initiated an international conference on drug prevention which resulted in many initiatives and improved the co-operation of the police and customs, not only within the United Kingdom but outside it? That, in turn, has led to an increase in drug seizures. Will not that welcome development in suppressing that evil trade benefit our residential communities?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is quite right. I saw the United Nations drugs commissioner, Signor Giacomelli this morning to discuss precisely these issues. What alarms him as much as it alarms me is the evidence of the increasing amounts of drugs—heroin, for example—coming from the Golden Crescent and reaching western Europe. We are also worried about the development of new routes—notably a Baltic route through the western USSR into the Baltic countries and thence into western Europe. This just shows how important international co-operation is.

Mr. Duffy: The Minister will know of my profound concern about drugs misuse, notably in South Yorkshire. I have conveyed that concern to the Home Department over many years and I am corresponding with the right hon. Gentleman about it. He will therefore understand my anxiety about the advance report of Judge Pickles' contribution to the BBC1 "Byline" series this coming Tuesday night, in which he is reported as saying that the struggle against drugs is now futile and has become hopeless. Has the Minister seen an advance report of Judge Pickles' remarks?

Mr. Patten: The learned judge has retired—

Mr. Duffy: Not yet; he retires next month.

Mr. Patten: In that case I had better bite my tongue and speak in generalities. Suffice it to say that I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regard legalising cannabis in this country as entirely wrong. It would be the single most damaging step that we could take to stoke up the fires of drug misuse among our young people and in our cities.

Prisons (Family Visits)

Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to extend family visits in prisons.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: From 17 June, instead of one visit a month, prisoners will be entitled to two visits a month. At Holloway, mothers can now have all-day visits from their children at least once, and often twice a month. That has been very successful. We are encouraging other establishments, wherever possible, to set up similar schemes.

Sir Anthony Durant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that prisoners are often put in prisons a long way from their homes? Could that matter be looked at? Could they be put in prisons nearer their homes so as to assist visits from their families and help them to keep stable relationships with them?

Mr. Baker: Whenever possible, prisoners are placed as close to their families as possible. In some cases, particularly those of dangerous criminals, it is not possible. When I visited Reading prison in my hon.

Friend's constituency, there were a large number of short-stay local prisoners. The same applies in nearby Oxford. In the Oxfordshire and Berkshire area, a new prison, Bullingdon, is being built. So my hon. Friend's part of the country is well covered in this respect, but I agree in principle with what he said.

Miss Lestor: First, I congratulate the Home Secretary on increasing the number of family visits and on the experiment in Holloway of bringing children into prison. Allowing them to spend time with their mothers is to be welcomed—if we are to continue to put women with children in prison, the success of which I doubt, but that is another matter. It is certainly a good move to allow them to have their children with them for longer periods.
I wish to stress the length of time that families spend travelling to visit prisoners. Many of my constituents—and, I am sure, many of the constituents of other hon. Members—will spend three quarters of the day trying to get to a prison for a very short visit and then have to drag their children back home again after spending very little time with the prisoner. However much the Home Office may be trying to ensure that prisoners are placed near their homes, it is by no means being successful.

Mr. Baker: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), we try to do that whenever we can, but it is not always possible. The hon. Lady knows, because she follows these matters, that assistance with travel costs can be obtained in certain circumstances.
I was grateful for the hon. Lady's welcome for the proposal, which is a sensible one, because when prisoners leave prison they have to resume their family responsibilities and they are often worried in prison about the break-up of their families. Anything that we can do to ease that problem is for the better.

Charities

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had towards implementation of the Woodfield report on charities.

Mr. John Patten: A wide range of charities and other interested bodies and individuals made helpful comments on the Woodfield report. The Government took account of those comments when preparing the 1989 White Paper and are continuing to do so in preparing forthcoming legislation.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Woodfield report, which addresses the proper administration of charities, has gathered dust for far too long? Does he further agree that recent allegations about misconduct in well-known charities does enormous damage and undermines the confidence and thus the generosity of the British people's charitable giving?

Mr. Patten: We want to sustain charitable giving in this country at its present record level. The British people are very generous, but my hon. Friend is right to say that nothing undermines that generous streak in the British character more than the fact that money is not reaching the right target or the right people or that political agitation is linked to charitable activity.

Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister confirm that the complaints against Oxfam are focused on its support for the use of sanctions against the apartheid system in South Africa and on its opposition to international support for the murderous Pol Pot who threatens a new holocaust in Cambodia? Why is it too political for charities to put the needs of the poor before self-serving power politics in the west?

Mr. Patten: That is not a matter for Ministers. Under British law it is entirely a matter for the charity commissioners.

Custody Time Limits

Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposals for custody time limits.

Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposals for custody time limits.

Mr. John Patten: Custody time limits have been introduced in stages following the successful pilot project in 1986. I am glad to announce today that we shall extend them by the end of this year throughout England and Wales.

Mr. Favell: That is very good news. My right hon. Friend may know that I am a lawyer. Within the privacy of these four walls I should like to let him into a lawyer's secret. No lawyer, whether he is a judge, a magistrates court clerk, a solicitor or a barrister, does today what can conveniently be put off until tomorrow. If they say that they cannot get the job done now, we should not believe them.

Mr. Patten: I shall treat my hon. Friend's information entirely confidentially. I note what he has said and I shall certainly not believe them.

Mr. Stevens: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Does he agree that long periods of custody are undesirable not only because they cause uncertainty and difficulty for prisoners and their families, but because holding people on remand wastes prison service resources? There is also the cost of transferring prisoners between the prisons and the courts.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is a great deal happening in addition to what I have announced. For example, 100 new bail information schemes and 1,000 new bail hostel places will come into being in the next year or so. My hon. Friend is right to imply that we should examine the technology and the economic feasibility of creating direct links between magistrates courts and remand centres in order to speed up remand hearings.

Mr. Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that at the beginning of the week a prisoner from Frankland prison in my constituency, who is serving 14 years for armed robbery and for holding a prison officer hostage, was given a free pass for a private operation in a London hospital? He was allowed to go unescorted and has absconded. Will the Minister set up an inquiry to see what happened in that case and to ensure that it cannot happen again, because many of my constituents are deeply worried about it?

Mr. Patten: I understand and share the fears of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I am advised by the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), who is responsible for prison issues, that we are aware of the case and that an investigation is under way. I shall make entirely sure by letter that the hon. Gentleman is kept up to date with the progress of that inquiry.

Sunday Trading

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received about reform of the law on Sunday trading.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): Since my reply on 25 April to a question from the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), up to 4 June we had received some 150 further written representations broadly in favour of greater Sunday trading and some 130 against.

Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present situation is absolutely anarchical and makes it quite impossible for local authorities such as mine, the borough of Beverley, to enforce the law, whatever it may be at the moment? That being so, will my right hon. Friend tell the House when proposals will be brought forward for reform, bearing in mind that no one wishes the issue to be rushed?

Mr. Rumbold: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am sure that he is aware that I am conducting consultations with all the interested parties in the hope that it will be possible to find some measure of agreement between them and to bring proposals before the House. The measures that are brought forward will have to be agreed, workable and enforceable, and carry general support.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that part of the problem is that there are those who will not enforce the law, which leads to further discrediting of it? Is the right hon. Lady aware that many of us throughout the country want to maintain the peace and quietness of our Sabbath day?

Mrs. Rumbold: The Government take the view that the law should be enforced and we stand four square behind those who enforce it. There are many who prefer Sunday to be at least a different and special day.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this Sunday about 60,000 shops will be open, many of them selling goods illegally? May I have an assurance that during the discussions my right hon. Friend will not give the "Keep Sunday Special" campaign a right of veto over Government policy?

Mrs. Rumbold: I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall give no one the right of veto over Government policy. It is a matter for the Government to decide and we are consulting to ensure that what ensues carries broad support throughout the country.

Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that there is concern about the extent of the law-breaking that is taking place? Is she aware also that recent court rulings have seriously weakened the enforcement powers of local authorities and


have made enforcement extremely risky? Will the right hon. Lady have a word with the Attorney-General with a view to encouraging him to use his extensive powers to restore law and order? I ask the right hon. Lady to do this without delay.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments. I am interested also to know whether the Labour party is moving towards some change in the Sunday trading laws. It is clear to me that the hon. Gentleman shares my view that matters need to be resolved and that the law must not continue to be broken. We must have a sensible resolution of these matters which is enforceable.

Immigration

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has been notified of any directives stemming from the EC which are designed to affect the way in which Her Majesty's Government controls and manages its admission and immigration policies.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I have not been notified of any such directive, though we are considering with our EC colleagues an intergovernmental convention on external frontiers. We have made the importance of our immigration frontier controls clear to our EC partners.

Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that a convention on the mutual recognition of visas could have devastating consequences on the ability of the United Kingdom Government to control entry into this country? Given the great importance of that, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if hon. Members were told what was involved in the convention and had an opportunity to discuss it and vote on it before the Government agree to undermine our control of visitors?

Mr. Lloyd: The House will have an opportunity to know what is in the convention before the Government sign it. I emphasise that it deals not with entry for settlement but with short-term visitors. We are insisting on the safeguards that are necessary to ensure that our frontier controls are as effective as we know that they should be.

Mr. Darling: The Minister must know that there is a spate of proposals from Europe which will have a radical effect on frontier controls in Europe—including, possibly, the United Kingdom. More than that, the proposals will radically affect the right of certain people living in Europe, including the United Kingdom, to move around the EEC after 1992. Does he agree that a statement by the Home Secretary is essential and that there should be a debate in Government time so that all of us can have a chance to express our concerns and views before the Government reach a deal in secret on any intergovernmental convention or enter into any secret deals as a result of Trevi or Schengen discussions? Will the Minister give the undertaking for which I have asked? If he does not, he can be assured that there will be a great deal of concern both inside and outside the House.

Mr. Lloyd: It would be silly to have such a debate until the Government have a clear view of what is on offer and know what they think that they can sign. The hon.

Gentleman is quite right—there are a number of issues under consideration. They deal with the visitors from outside the Community, not those coming for settlement, and with easier movement of those from the minorities settled in EC countries who wish to move around the Community. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, and even his noisy hon. Friends, would support that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.

Mr. Banks: Will the Prime Minister join me in sending best wishes to Prince William for a complete recovery — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is the nice bit—

Mr. Speaker: And it is just about in order.

Mr. Banks: Did the Prime Minister see the article in yesterday's Daily Mirror—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One question is the ration.

Mr. Banks: Did the Prime Minister see the article in yesterday's Daily Mirror stating that the scanner used on the prince at the Royal Berkshire hospital was bought from the proceeds of jumble sales and sponsored walks? Is the Prime Minister aware that the ambulance which brought the prince to London was from a service that is actually breaking down in Greater London and that Great Ormond Street hospital, which looked after the prince so well, is turning away sick children because of the pressures on its services and has been kept open only by public begging? What sort of society is it that can find all the money in the world for weapons of death and destruction, but when it comes to keeping hospital wards open and buying vital medical equipment, has to use sponsored runs, flag days and jumble sales?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House and the country will join the hon. Gentleman in sending best wishes to Prince William. We all hope that he will make a full recovery as speedily as possible.
The Government found £33,000 million for the national health service, which is four times as much in cash terms as any previous Government have ever found. The private collections and private donations which go towards providing equipment such as scanners show, above all that the people of this country, including the Conservative party—in fact, often led by those in the Conservative party—care sufficiently for the national health service to cherish it and provide extra resources for it.

Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend is aware of the tremendous support among Conservative Members for his views on economic and monetary union—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Come on, please.

Mr. Gill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those same views, clearly articulated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the "Today" programme this week, command the support of the majority of British voters, as evidenced by a recent opinion poll showing that 63 per cent. oppose the single currency?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about that. It is becoming increasingly recognised in this country and the Community that moves towards economic and monetary union which did not reflect proper convergence would be damaging, not only for this country, but for the whole of the Economic Community. That has been our position since the beginning of the negotiations and it remains our position, together with our constant intention to preserve the prerogatives of this House.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us what in concrete terms he intends to do to ensure that further harm does not come to small businesses as a result of the high interest rates being imposed upon them?

The Prime Minister: The principal damage and difficulty that small firms have faced in recent years has been the collapse of demand not only in Britain but abroad as a result of a general downturn in trade and inflationary problems. Inflation is now falling rapidly, and that is a matter of the greatest concrete concern to small businesses, as they have repeatedly testified.

Mr. Kinnock: It is obvious from that answer that the Prime Minister is not going to do anything in concrete terms. Is it not obvious that high interest rates are the policy of the Government and that the banks' behaviour is the result of financial deregulation, also the policy of the Government? Why does not the Prime Minister change the policies, as he should, or will he remain the betrayer of small businesses?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, having other things on his mind, has clearly not noticed that inflation is falling rapidly and that interest rates have fallen by 3·5 per cent. in recent months. That will make a dramatic difference to individuals' prospects and, most particularly, to prospects for small and large firms.

Mr. Kinnock: Small businesses which used to have arrangements to pay 3 per cent. above base rate on their overdraft facilities are now paying as much as 17 per cent. —[Interruption.] Oh yes, they are. Conservative Members should talk to some of the people who run the businesses which are paying that kind of money. How can such huge charges contribute to fighting inflation or to sustaining the small business sector?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the gasp of frank disbelief at what he said a few moments ago. I hope that he will provide clear illustrations, not an isolated example, of what he has just said. What is necessary for the future health of Britain is, first, to ensure that we bring inflation down to a low level; secondly, to keep it there; and, thirdly, so as to ensure that that happens, never again to have a Labour Government.

Sir John Wheeler: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read about the dreadful events taking place in Labour-controlled Hackney—[Interruption.]—where council officials have been racketeering on the backs of the homeless and illegally renting out properties? [Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a scandal, and will he condemn the empty properties that Hackney, Lambeth, Islington and Liverpool have that could be brought into use?

The Prime Minister: In so far as I could hear the question over the chanting from Opposition Members, I believe that it concerned Hackney borough council. Anyone who wanted an example of the Labour party in power could only have seen it in recent years in local government in places such as Hackney, and I do not believe that they will have liked what they have seen. Labour repeatedly feigns concern for the homeless, but Hackney has more than 2,000 properties empty.

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Kirkwood: Reverting to the important question of a single European currency, has the Prime Minister yet had a chance to study the important speech made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) last night? Am I right in thinking that the Prime Minister's personal opinion is that a single currency may be a good thing eventually, but not yet and not for the foreseeable future? Does he not think that that "yes-maybe" approach to the question is now so hedged about and qualified as to be almost devoid of any meaning? When will he come to the House and tell the country what he thinks is the right course of action for Britain to take in this fundamentally important economic issue?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not been listening over the past two years, because we have done it repeatedly. We have made it plain to the House and to our European partners that we cannot accept any changes to the treaty of Rome which would bind us to a single currency or a single monetary policy without a separate decision by this party, by this Government and by this Parliament.

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member who represents the constituency where I was educated—the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—on exercising his right of parental choice under the Education Reform Act 1988—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibility. He has no responsibility for that.

Mr. Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that parental choice in schools is a major Conservative policy,


and would it not help if more senior members of the Opposition parties joined Conservatives in supporting parental freedom of choice?

The Prime Minister: I am always pleased to see support for Conservative reforms, especially from Labour Front Benchers. I wish that they would not say one thing in opposition and practise something else in there own lives.

Q5. Mrs. Irene Adams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Adams: The question that I am going to put to the Prime Minister is a simple one and it has been put to him twice at Prime Minister's questions in the past few weeks, but he has refused to answer it. Following his last refusal, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Lady, who is new to us, that preambles take up much time? Will she ask a question, please?

Mrs. Adams: Is the Prime Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen wrote to him putting that question yet again? He is still awaiting a reply. Will the Prime Minister answer today, because the question deserves a serious answer—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the hon. Lady a chance to ask her question—please.

Mrs. Adams: If the Conservatives should win the next general election, will the Prime Minister give an absolute guarantee that he will not raise value added tax—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: When the Conservative party has won the next general election, the hon. Lady will see, and will perhaps have learnt by then, that no Government at any stage give categorical assurances—none have, and none will. But I can say to the hon. Lady that we have no present plans whatsoever to increase value added tax.

Mr. Moss: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read a report published yesterday by the respected City firm, Goldman Sachs, which concludes that a minimum wage policy would destroy jobs, increase inflation and lead to a

reduction in output? Does he agree that it is totally irresponsible of the Labour party to continue peddling that policy?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I have seen that report and it shares the views of the Government, the Fabian Society and many others. A minimum wage would have devastating effects for people. It would encourage others to seek to raise the general level of wages. It would raise inflation and unemployment, and a National Institute estimate—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen, because this would affect people and their jobs, about whom they claim to care. The institute estimates that a statutory minimum wage would raise price levels by 3·5 per cent. at the end of three years, and would reduce the level of gross domestic product by 0·5 per cent. That is the likely cost of a Labour Government.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bennett: Why have not the problems of a minimum wage that the Prime Minister just outlined caused difficulties in West Germany?

The Prime Minister: rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I was unable to hear the hon. Gentleman's question over the noise being made by Opposition Members. If you, Mr. Speaker, will allow the hon. Gentleman to repeat his question, I shall endeavour to respond to it.

Mr. Bennett: I asked why the problems of a minimum wage that the Prime Minister outlined have not been evident in West Germany.

The Prime Minister: West Germany has in no sense in recent years had many of the attendant difficulties created by trade unions and others—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is now a stack of people, the Fabian Society—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: We have seen the way the Opposition behave and it is not unlike Hackney borough council writ large.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us what will be the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Yes, Sir.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 JUNE—Timetable motion, followed by proceedings on the Dangerous Dogs Bill.
TUESDAY 11 JUNE—Progress in Committee of the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill.
WEDNESDAY 12 JUNE—Conclusion of Committee and remaining stages of the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill.
THURSDAY 13 JUNE—Opposition Day (13th allotted day).
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion described as "The Impact of the Government's Recessionary Policies on Business".
FRIDAY 14 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 17 JUNE—Committee and remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 12 June to consider Document No. 6033/90, relating to supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products.
[Relevant documents:
Wednesday 12 June
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document 6033/90 Medicinal Products (Legal Protection)
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee HC 11-xxv ( 1989–90) and HC 29-xxii (1990–91)]

Dr. Cunningham: Why are the Government introducing a timetable motion on the Bill to control dangerous dogs, which the Opposition do not intend to oppose? Is it not a ridiculous state of affairs that the Government want to guillotine the debate on a Bill which, broadly speaking and in principle, the Opposition welcome? That will force debate and decisions on the Bill into the middle of the night and early hours of the morning when, with proper agreement across the Floor, the House could have a far more sensible debate on that very important problem—and almost certainly reach far more sensible decisions. It must be unprecedented for a Government to cut short debate on a Bill that the Opposition support in principle. Is not the Government's real problem that they want to timetable the Bill to prevent their own supporters from causing difficulties when they rightly intend to vote for a dog registration scheme—which we will certainly support, and which, as all the evidence shows, has the overwhelming support of the public.

Mr. Roger Gale: Why did not the Opposition support one in the past?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman, who bellows at me from a sedentary position, must have a short memory. We have consistently supported a dog registration scheme, and we will do so again.
I invite the Leader of the House to arrange with the Government Chief Whip a free vote on that issue—with which we would also co-operate—to ensure that the House genuinely reaches an honest decision on whether Britain should have a dog registration scheme.
I know that the Leader of the House has not been able to find time for a debate about European Community affairs next week. May I impress on him the urgent need for such a debate, given the important developments that we have seen throughout Europe—not just in the Community? Can the debate be held before the European summit that is to take place in Luxembourg towards the end of the month? I believe that there would be widespread support for it. Given the current interest in European developments among Conservative Members, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will want to satisfy the wishes of his right hon. and hon. Friends as well as helping the Opposition.
Why are we to spend next week debating yet another Local Government Finance Bill, which, by definition, will perpetuate the existence of the poll tax for another two or three years? Why cannot a proposal to abolish the poll tax immediately be embodied in a simple clause, or group of clauses? The Opposition would co-operate fully in order to remove this abysmal, capricious tax from the statute book at the earliest opportunity.
When do the Government intend to arrange a debate on their own White Paper on the environment, "Our Common Inheritance", which was published with great fanfares nine months ago but has now disappeared without trace? Are the Government now putting important decisions about environmental policy on the back shelf because the environment is no longer considered to be politically opportune or fashionable? A debate on the White Paper would be in the interests of the House and the country.

Mr. MacGregor: I believe that the House and the whole country think it important for us to put the Dangerous Dogs Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible—

Dr. Cunningham: We have already co-operated to accelerate its progress.

Mr. MacGregor: I am explaining why we are tabling a timetable motion. It is important to get the Bill on the statute book, not only to protect innocent people who may be subjected to the behaviour of fighting dogs but to ensure that the breeding of such dogs is stopped so that matters go no further. I believe that, if we are to do that as quickly as possible, it will be necessary to take the Bill through the House in the way that the Government suggest. I also believe that that is what the House wants.
If the Opposition do not wish to oppose the Bill, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said—and I was very pleased to hear him say it—they will no doubt assist us in accelerating the debate. We are taking steps to ensure that the Bill gets through, but—as hon. Members will see when the timetable motion is tabled later this afternoon—we are allowing as much time as possible for the Bill to be debated on the one day allotted to it. I think that the House will want to get it through in a day, and the guillotine motion will ensure that that happens.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are allowing plenty of time for sensible debate. Let me point out that we shall have even more time if we debate the guillotine motion briefly: then we can get on to the Bill quickly. That would


suit me as much as it would suit the hon. Gentleman. He will see when he reads the motion that we are allowing plenty of time for debate on the dog registration issue.
I agree that Europe is a very important subject, and I hope to arrange a debate in the near future. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will take place before the European summit in Luxembourg. I am not sure that I am helping the Opposition in arranging the debate, as it will certainly expose the divisions in their ranks, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for it.
The reason why we have not introduced a single clause to this effect in the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, is that it would then be necessary to replace the community charge with an alternative system. The council tax that we propose deals, in a way that the Opposition's proposals would not, with all—or virtually all—the defects of both the old domestic rating system and the community charge. I defy the Opposition to propose a single clause to cover all the alternatives to the community charge.

Dr. Cunningham: I did not say that.

Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman did not say that, he is demonstrating once again his naivety by suggesting that we can leave in limbo the question of local government finance. It was ridiculous to suggest a single clause.
As for the White Paper on the environment, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have frequently discussed environmental matters in the House and have pursued many of the action proposals in the White Paper, which are being followed up. I hope to be able to arrange a debate on the environment because I agree that it is an important subject. I should be only too delighted to have a progress report on all that has been done to follow up the White Paper, but there is a difficulty in fitting it in, given the fact that we have a heavy legislative programme.

Mr. John Marshall: Would my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on homelessness in London? Is he aware that today there are more than 20,000 vacant council houses in London, which represents 20 houses for every person sleeping rough in London tonight? Is that not a scandal on which we should have another debate?

Mr. MacGregor: Certainly I think that other reports have drawn attention to the fact that a number of Labour authorities have many vacant houses which have remained vacant for a long time. I agree that it is right that attention should be drawn to that fact.

Mr. James Wallace: Where does the Leader of the House expect any opposition to the Dangerous Dogs Bill to come from? Does he not think imposing a guillotine means there is more chance of us getting the legislation wrong than if proper consideration were allowed?
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, his right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor introduced important provisions earlier this week for civil legal aid, which seem to restrict greatly the right of ordinary citizens to appear before the courts. When will the House have an opportunity to debate those proposals?

Mr. MacGregor: Let me be clear on the first point. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the House will agree and

that the Bill will go through quickly, that will be ideal and admirable, and it is what I should like to see happen. However, there are quite a number of amendments to the Bill, so we want a proper timetable to get it through as quickly as possible, because we all agree that it is urgent.
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways—he cannot say that we do not need a timetable to ensure that the Bill is properly considered and also say that it will go through quickly. We are trying to get the Bill through the House as quickly as possible, concomitant with sufficient debate to get it right. I believe that we have it right, but it is right to allow time for the amendments to be discussed.
As far as the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that he has an open mind especially on the main option but also on others canvassed in the paper, and has allowed until 31 October for consultation. We have a crowded programme, so I do not know at this stage whether we shall have the opportunity to have a debate in the House before the end of the consultation period or afterwards, but I note the hon. Gentleman's request.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, when he carries through the experiment that he announced in written questions yesterday dealing with the Procedure Committee's recommendations on Lords amendments, which one hopes will make it simpler for the House to carry through and understand the way in which Lords amendments are dealt with, there is a notice on the Order Paper so that hon. Members have the new procedure drawn to their attention? Perhaps the House would attend during the Lords amendments to ensure that the new procedure works to their benefit.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to his Committee for the proposals for dealing with Lords amendments. I am also grateful for the opportunity to draw to the House's attention the written answer which shows how we propose to proceed. At this stage, it is still experimental, and in a sense it is a dummy run to see whether the suggestions by my hon. Friend's Committee will benefit the House and be advantageous in considering Lords amendments. Once again, it is an example of the constructive work done by my hon. Friend's Committee; I pay tribute to him and make it clear that, once again, the Government are responding positively.

Mr. James Lamond: On the question of an early end to the poll tax, is the Leader of the House aware that my constituents who, I think are fairly typical, are now complaining because they are confused and misunderstand the different schemes to rebate the poll tax and subtract £140—to such an extent that the council in Oldham is now receiving complaints at twice last year's level? That is likely to continue until the poll tax is ended.
Is there not some way in which we could debate bringing forward the ending of the poll tax? At least that would help the Government, if nothing else.

Mr. MacGregor: There is absolutely no confusion about the switch of the £140 from which the hon. Gentleman's constituents are greatly benefiting. I hope that he will draw to their attention the benefits that they are getting from it.
On our alternative—the council tax—as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are consulting for just over another week. The Government will then come forward with proposals. We are moving very fast on this matter—as fast as is practicable. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the proposals that we shall make are much more beneficial to his constituents than the proposals of his own party.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement next week on the plight of those British subjects whose careers were shattered and possessions plundered during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait? Will he ask his ministerial colleagues to consider whether it would be fair to compensate them out of the Iraqi assets that are frozen in this country?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a debate on the point that my hon. Friend raises, but I will certainly draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If we can prove conclusively that the Iraqi Government have breached United Nations resolution 688 and have resumed oppression against the Kurdish peoples, would that be sufficient to warrant a statement from a Minister?

Mr. MacGregor: There is no evidence that there is any systematic or widespread repression of the Kurds at present. We are in close contact with other joint force members to agree ways of providing reassurance to the Kurdish population if and when forces are withdrawn.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I wanted to make that point absolutely clear. On his hypothesis, clearly in that situation we would obviously consider making a statement to the House, and I can give him that assurance.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Given that plans are afoot for the imposition of an expensive additional layer of regional government, which in our case would be run from Newcastle, not Teesside, and given that the development corporations and many of the Government's presently active inner-city initiatives will be scrapped, would it be possible for us at an early opportunity to debate the Labour party's proposals for the northern region and other English regions?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early opportunity in Government time, but I am sure that he will be able to find opportunities in the House for making the cogent criticisms that I am sure he would wish to develop.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Given the Prime Minister's stated wish to raise the political profile of Edinburgh by holding a European Community meeting there, why is the Leader of the House undermining that wish by not holding even one Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Scotland's capital city?

Mr. MacGregor: I know that several Scottish Grand Committee meetings are coming forward in the immediate future— [HON. MEMBERS: "Not in Edinburgh."] That is a matter that I would obviously have to look at.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: My right hon. Friend will know that the Secretary of State for Defence made a far-reaching and important statement on the future of the armed forces, particularly as regards the size of the Army. That will affect many of our constituents. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that we will be able to debate that matter well before the White Paper is introduced, so that we can put our concerns to the Secretary of State and also show up the disastrous review that took place in the 1970s and 1960s when the Labour party was in power?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance as to the exact timing of any debate, because there is a great deal to be fitted into the programme at the moment, but I can assure him that there will be a number of occasions in the comparatively near future when we will be able to debate these matters.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week on the rules governing Ministers—which, as he knows, are based on the principle that Ministers should order their affairs so that there is no conflict between their public duty and their private interests? Will he make a statement about the four Cabinet members who are members of Lloyd's, at a time when Lloyd's members are organising a campaign to obtain tax concessions which will directly benefit Lloyd's members, including the four members of the Cabinet? How can that conflict of interest be maintained? Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement making it clear that Ministers should divest themselves of those private financial interests?

Mr. MacGregor: The rules relating to Ministers' interests are very clear and, I am sure, are being wholly abided by. I do not see any need for a statement on that matter next week.

Mr. Richard Holt: Earlier this week, I may have inadvertently misled the House when I referred to changes in the rules relating to people who suffer from diabetes which seem to have been introduced by an order without any debate or discussion in the House. I distinctly remember the announcement that those who suffer from diabetes would receive their medication free. Earlier, I misled the House into believing that those who suffer from diabetes but do not take medicine as their diabetes is controlled by diet would no longer receive their medication, testing equipment and other things free of charge. I have since learnt that the position is worse than that. Only those on insulin will have their medication free. The House and the country have been misled. There should be a statement in the House at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not know about that matter, so I will have to discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that Question 13 to the Home Secretary was not reached? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement about free television licences for old-age pensioners? It must be wrong for old-age pensioners on one side of the street to receive free television licences while those on the other side of the street do not. Some pensioners in the same warden accommodation do not


qualify for free television licences while others do. Some pensioners who have been in such accommodation for five years qualify, while those who have only just arrived do not. The Prime Minister talks about a classless society. Let us see that put into practice and have less talk. There should be free television licences for all old-age pensioners.

Mr. MacGregor: I did not notice that Question 13 had not been reached, but I assume that it was tabled by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and that he has just found a way of making his point to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, that is not the correct use of business questions. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover will, with his usual persistence, table his question again.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: In the light of the interesting speech by Mikhail Gorbachev in association with his Nobel prize, would it be possible next week or the week after to debate the bipartisan amendment to early-day motion 891, which is linked to the plea that the British dependants Maria and Anna Gordievsky and their mother Leila should be allowed to join their father in this country after being separated for six years? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the best way to show that there is a new USSR and not one that is still controlled by the KGB?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot arrange a debate on that in Government time next week. However, in relation to early-day motion 891, the Government welcome the programme link-up between the United Kingdom and Soviet Parliaments broadcast on 5 June. We entirely agree that the Gordievsky family should be allowed to be reunited in Britain without any further delay.

Mr. David Winnick: In view of the mounting concern in Britain about what could happen to the Kurds if the allies decide to leave northern Iraq, surely it is necessary for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to at least tell us the allies' intentions? Do the allies intend to leave or not? Why should the Kurds be at the tender mercy of Saddam Hussein and his thugs? We need a statement as quickly as possible so that we can know precisely what the allies intend to do.

Mr. MacGregor: I have already said something about that in reply to an earlier question. I will convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. As I said earlier, no doubt at an appropriate time, information will be made available to the House.

Mr. Michael Grylls: As the former and very successful Minister for small businesses, will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate at the earliest opportunity on the conditions of bank lending to smaller firms? My right hon. Friend will agree that it is not an issue that can be dealt with sensibly in superficial questions at Question Time. It is a deep subject. It is not an easy matter, but it would be right for the House to debate it at this time.

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for encouraging and helping small businesses. He and I have done many things together in that regard. He will be aware of the comments that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made on Tuesday on the matter and of the discussions that my right hon. Friend

the Chancellor of the Exchequer is having at present. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on the matter next week, but I continue to take a close interest in everything to do with small businesses. At an appropriate time, I should be delighted to have a debate on the subject.

Mr. John Garrett: The Leader of the House knows that the Government's response to the Procedure Committee's report on Select Committees places the status of the Comptroller and Auditor General in jeopardy. Why did the Leader of the House allow that response to be published when clearly it had not been thought through? When will he make a statment on the subject?

Mr. MacGregor: It was thought through. I know that there are different views in the House, but the Government's position on the matter was thought through. I discussed it with several people. I hope to be able to introduce new Standing Orders on some aspects of the report—those on which it is for the Government to act—shortly.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does not my right hon. Friend recall that this Parliament of all Parliaments has imposed more curtailments of free speech through the device of the guillotine? The sophistry that my right hon. Friend wove in responding to the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), did not address the question why, when the House seems to accept that the curtailment of dogs with dangerous tendencies for the sake of the general public has great support in the country, the Government whom I support insist on imposing yet another of these wretched guillotines to deny free speech. Does not my right hon. Friend remember that we legislate in haste and repent at leisure?

Mr. MacGregor: It is because I believe that many people in the House, as in the country, want us to take action on the matter as quickly as possible. If my hon. Friend is right that there is agreement, clearly we shall get the Bill through well within the terms that we have set down in the guillotine.

Mr. Cryer: Not without proper debate.

Mr. MacGregor: If there is general agreement, that is what will happen. If, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) seems to suggest, there is great opposition to the Bill, that makes it desirable to put the Bill through quickly. In the timetable motion we shall allow plenty of time for what is after all a short Bill, which the whole House apparently supports. We shall allow plenty of time for the issues to be debated.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a short debate to deal with the traumatic problem faced by the families of Scottish people who have been found dead or murdered on the streets of London? The families are having immense problems in bringing the body back home so that they can deal with it in their own fashion. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Home Secretary knows about the problem and can help prevent Scottish families from suffering such a traumatic problem?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, he will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who will examine it immediately.

Mr. Bill Walker: Can my right hon. Friend provide an early opportunity to debate the minimum import price into the European Community of raspberries? [Laughter.] Hon. Members find it amusing, but Tayside in Scotland grows more than 80 per cent. of the raspberries grown commercially within the European Community. That product is at risk, because the minimum import price runs out at the end of July, in the middle of the picking season. It must be extended and the European Community must be made to realise that the industry, which receives no public support and is a great asset to Scotland and the United Kingdom, could be put at risk. We will not accept the minimum import price being negotiated away to allow eastern European imports into the European Community.

Mr. MacGregor: I know well, knowing that part of Scotland well, of the importance of that industry to that part of Scotland. When I was Minister of Agriculture, I had on a number of occasions at this time of year to deal with the alleged dumping of raspberries, when the real difficulty was getting the evidence. I assure my hon. Friend that a great deal of attention is paid to the issue. I am sure that he has already drawn the matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I shall do so as well.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Some months ago, I raised with the Leader of the House the question of British hostages. At that time I reminded him that, rightly, diplomatic activity should have considerable priority. As no progress seems evident, will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate so that our voice may be heard? Alternatively, will he arrange for a statement to be made to update the House on what is happening?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know of the considerable efforts in relation to hostages that the British Government, in particular Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, have been making. In connection with one group, the Minister of State at that Department hopes to make a visit soon. I assure the hon. Gentleman that constant efforts are being made. If and when it is appropriate to make a statement, I shall make sure that one is made.

Mr. Barry Porter: May we have a debate in the near future on the progress of the talks in Northern Ireland? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for the House to show its total support for the efforts that are being made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? That would show those who are at present involved in slaughter in Northern Ireland that hon. Members in all parts of the House and people throughout the country, in every constitutional party, are in favour of reaching some sort of accommodation. That message should be spelled out clearly by the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend, and the whole House will welcome the news that agreement has now been reached on the outstanding procedural points and that the four political parties taking part in the talks

have decided to begin plenary sessions on 17 June. We hope that the painstaking preparatory work conducted during the last five weeks—I pay warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in that respect—will have laid a firm foundation for substantive negotiations. There will be other opportunities before the House rises, not only during Question Time, to discuss Northern Ireland issues.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we please have a debate on the 17th report of the Committee of Public Accounts entitled "National Health Service: Patient Transport Services"? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Committee unanimously considered it unacceptable that many services in our major cities are not meeting the minimum emergency standards? Does he know that, in many cities, such as Leicester, the ambulance services are overworked and are having the greatest difficulty meeting the needs imposed on them by a growing and aging population? When shall we debate that other defect in the national health service?

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are procedures for dealing with Public Accounts Committee debates and for selecting the topics. I cannot tell him at this stage when the next debate will be.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Apart from the important question of principle raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), may I ask my right hon. Friend to explain what possible excuse there can be for guillotining a Bill that the whole House supports?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that the need is for speed. We are giving a great deal of time for the Bill to be dealt with, and if there is such great agreement, perhaps we shall finish the debate well within the timing of the guillotine.

Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a statement to be made by the Government about the serious situation facing Post Office Counters, where management are refusing to go to arbitration to settle a serious dispute on the basis of a 7 per cent. pay offer which is way below the operative retail prices index, and which represents a 1.2 per cent. cut in living standards? Is he further aware that it is the lowest public sector pay offer at present under way? Do the Government agree with the management in making that offer, when another public sector worker, the Governor of the Bank of England, has received a 17 per cent. pay offer, repressenting an increase of £22,500, which is double the rates of maximum pay received in a whole year by a Post Office Counters worker?

Mr. MacGregor: Those are matters for Post Office Counters management and the unions. I see no opportunity for a debate next week.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House consider an urgent debate on the re-emergence and growth of Militant Tendency within the Labour movement and the Labour party so that we can demonstrate to the British people that the Labour party have not been successful, in any whit, regard or particular, in eliminating that problem from the ranks of the Labour party and the Labour movement?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend Other events, including a by-election, may show that Militant Tendency is still alive and kicking in the Labour party. However, my hon. Friend must find other opportunities—as I am sure he will—to raise the matter next week.

Mr. David Young: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate on Gibraltar before the summer recess so that the House can discuss the worrying harassment of British citizens by the Spanish at the border crossing? We could then also consider the controversial Brussels agreement—the ill-conceived airport agreement—which is doing much to wreck the potential commercial viability of the colony, and the European Community dimension as it affects Gibraltar.

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate specifically on that issue. But he mentioned the European Community dimension and, as I have already told the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I hope very soon to announce a debate on European matters, at which that subject could be raised.

Mr. Ian Bruce: For some months now, hon. Members on both sides of the House have been asking for a debate on the "Options for Change" implications for the Navy, particularly naval bases. My right hon. Friend will know of my concern and that of my constituents who are based in the royal naval base in Portland, the research establishments and sea systems controllerate. Will he organise a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence next week to tell us what is going on—I understand that decisions have already been made—and an early debate so that we can discuss how we should organise our Navy in the 1990s and the year 2000?

Mr. MacGregor: It is unlikely that there will be a statement next week, but I shall look into the matter and discuss it with my right hon. Friend. There will be opportunities in the coming weeks to debate service matters further.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: During Tuesday's debate, will the Secretary of State for the Environment make a public confession that, according to recent parliamentary replies on local government statistics, the total cost of administering and collecting the poll tax is now well over £1,000 million? That makes the poll tax one of the biggest and most expensive blunders in the history of any Government. If local councillors were responsible for misspending even a tiny fraction of that amount, they would be surcharged and banned from office. Does the Leader of the House agree that the entire Cabinet should be collectively surcharged and that the people should now have the opportunity to kick them out of office?

Mr. MacGregor: That will not be relevant to Tuesday's debate. Without question, one of the causes of the greatest uproar and grievance to the public is the fact that some people have not paid their community charge.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is it not an alarming fact that the number of foreign citizens now claiming political asylum in this country, and therefore being allowed to remain for up to four years, has risen from 100 a week to 1,000 a week? Is not the pressure that is now building up on housing, social security and education in the areas of London in which those people must be settled so great that it is threatening to undermine the social fabric of the

region? Will my right hon. Friend consider an early debate or, failing that, a statement from the Home Secretary about how we could restrain, sensibly and with good judgment, that breakaway activity, which is threatening to become worse?

Mr. MacGregor: I fully recognise the importance of the point that my hon. and learned Friend raises, and I shall discuss with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when it might be discussed in the House.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the decision by the Export Credits Guarantee Department to withdraw support from many countries, including the Soviet Union? Is he aware that Germany, by contrast, is increasing support to the Soviet Union, thus helping the long-term interests of its industry? Is it not time the Government started helping manufacturing instead of harming it?

Mr. MacGregor: We offer a great deal of assistance for exports, as the hon. Lady knows, and large sums are involved. She could pursue this matter at Question Time with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when I am sure he will give a robust response.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will there be time next week to debate what is happening in the city of Liverpool, which is a matter of great concern if not to Members on both sides of the House at least to Conservative Members—my elderly mother, for example, still insists on living there? The rubbish is piling up on the streets, the buses are not running, council staff are on strike, and the Labour party in control seems completely to have lost its head when it comes to trying to run Militant out of town—it seems to be failing. Opposition Members who represent the city will not raise the issue; one or two of them are part of the problem; and the Liberal Member does not appear to have raised the issue. So it looks as though we shall have to raise it, and I beg my right hon. Friend to give us the opportunity to debate it.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that one of the reasons why Opposition Members do not raise the matter is that they are part of the problem. It is clear that Militant Tendency is still very alive in Liverpool—as we shall see shortly. I must leave it to my hon. Friend—as she has done effectively this afternoon—to draw attention to these matters in the House and elsewhere.

Mr. Max Madden: May I again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the case of Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal, whose plight is outlined in early-day motion 828?
[That this House expresses concern that Karamjit Singh Chahal, a British citizen settled in the United Kingdom since 1974, has been detained in Bedford Prison since August 1990; notes Mr. Chahal is detained subject to a notice of the Secretary of State's decision to make a deportation order under section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 for reasons of national security and other reasons of a political nature; calls for Mr. Chahal to be released immediately pending his being allowed to appeal, with legal representation, against refusal by the Home Secretary to grant political asylum in the United Kingdom; expresses concern that if Mr. Chahal is deported to India he is likely, in the


view of Amnesty International to be subjected to torture, disappearance or extrajudicial execution; recalls Mr. Chahal, when visiting India in 1984, was arrested and detained at Mehta police station for nine days, during which he was beaten and otherwise ill-treated and that he was transferred to a police station in Amritsar and held for another 10 or 11 days, during which he was subjected to torture, including severe beatings and electric shock treatments and regrets that a number of Mr. Chahal's relatives have been tortured or ill-treated while held in police custody, that two relatives have recently been killed by security forces, allegedly in fake encounters and that another relative, Kulwant Singh Nagoke, died in police custody.]
Will the Leader of the House press the Home Secretary to intervene before Mr. Chahal is heard on Monday under the discredited "three wise men" deportation procedure? If he has committed any security offences in Britain, why is he not being dealt with by the British courts? If he has not, why has he not been allowed a full, open, independent appeal, with the right to legal representation, so that all the facts can be brought out and his case can be properly defended?

Mr. MacGregor: I reject the view that this is a discredited procedure, and I repeat what I told the hon. Gentleman recently: the Home Secretary will review the case fully in the light of the advisers' recommendations.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a growing sense of unease on both sides of the House about the case of Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray which was raised in an Adjournment debate by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) the other evening? Although the case involved only three people, the House should be concerned about their fate. The explanations given so far have been appalling, implying that the men were digging a trench for their own benefit and fun.
Such men have to go into places that are sometimes dangerous, and if we do not protect them, the attitude of the Government to looking after those selected to serve in the armed forces will be discredited. The sums of money involved are small when set against the sacrifice and service that we demand of such men. So will the Leader of the House rescue the Government from what will be an increasingly embarrassing problem and see that justice is done for those who serve under the Crown on behalf of the people of this country?

Mr. MacGregor: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is aware of this case and I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to his attention.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House recall that, on every occasion when this country has taken up arms, ever since the Crimean war, through the Jameson raid to the Falklands, the House of Commons has had a serious debate in the aftermath of each conflict?
Before the so-called victory parade on 21 June, should we not have a proper debate on the extraordinary answer that I received on Tuesday from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces? Cancer of the order of 20 cigarettes a day in the short term is in the long and medium term a serious matter in the Kuwait oilfield. Should we not discuss the situation in Kuwait and take the opinion of

some of my hon. Friends about the Kurds? Is it not a disgrace that the House can find time for many matters but not for this one?

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have to find time for a great many matters at present. For example, three days next week will be taken up by urgent legislation, and I am sure that that time will be fully used. It is, of course, open to the Opposition to use one of their days for this matter. As I said earlier, when we are debating defence matters, it may be possible to raise some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Given the current brutality in Lithuania and Armenia, the monitoring of the conventional forces agreements and the potential trade credits likely to be given through the Group of Seven to the Soviet Union, could my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on east-west relations and, in particular, on relations with the Soviet Union?

Mr. MacGregor: I have noticed what my hon. Friend says. I cannot promise a full day's debate specifically on the matter that he raises, but I am sure that in the coming weeks there will be opportunities to raise it.

Mr. Tony Banks: As I understand it, the Leader of the House was one of those advised to stay in bed today because of the juxtaposition of the planets. I do not know whether that was good advice, or what sort of day he has had. Next week's sleeping arrangements concern us. Will the Leader of the House give some indication of the timetable for the Dangerous Dogs Bill? It would be absurd for him to insist on forcing it through in one day because legislation on the hoof, or perhaps I should say on the paw, will probably be bad legislation. Can we at least have a guarantee that we will be allowed to speak through the night on the Bill, because a day has 24 hours?

Mr. McGregor: I understand that the point about me in today's Guardian relates to my horoscope and the month in which I was born. I see from the newspaper that the critical time was 2.56 pm, which time has already passed. I read the advice for today, which was, "Just go slow, don't rush, and don't expect to achieve a great deal." That sounds like the House of Commons on a bad day. I hope that Monday will be a good day, and that we will not have to rush. I hope that we will achieve a great deal. We have allowed almost two days for the debate, because the guillotine will operate until 4 am.

Mr. Michael Brown: My right hon. Friend will recall being challenged by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), at business questions on 2 May. The hon. Gentleman said:
Ministers in the Welsh Office are writing letters to hospitals pressurising them to opt out of the NHS … as a Minister in the Welsh Office has done recently."—[Official Report, 2 May 1991; Vol. 190, c. 439.]
I was perturbed to learn that my colleagues in the Welsh Office were doing that. I challenged them about it, because the House knows that it is impossible for hospitals to opt out of the NHS. All my colleagues in the Welsh Office assured me that they had written no such letter. They told me that they had invited the hon. Gentleman to produce the letter that they are alleged to have written, but that he has failed to do so. Will my right hon. Friend make a


statement about the matter or at least invite the hon. Member for Copeland to withdraw the allegation, which still stands on the record?

Mr. MacGregor: I well recall the matter being raised during business questions on 2 May, and I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales has written to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the letter, challenging him to produce it. The hon. Gentleman is always courteous, and I am sure that he will now arrange for a retraction of his statement, because I gather that the letter does not exist.

Mr. John Battle: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 919, which is supported by more than 80 hon. Members?
[That this House notes with concern the action of Lewis's Group Ltd. of Leeds, who have raided the company's pension scheme to purchase a property from a subsidiary and to provide the company with a loan at cost of approximately £2 million, including interest to the pension scheme; believes that any surplus should have been used for the beneficiaries of the pension scheme and not to run the business; understands that despite the sacrifice of the workers who had taken a cut in wages of 7·5 per cent. in order to keep the company afloat, unscrupulous employers were able to raid the scheme because of the Government's changes to the pension regulations; and calls on the Government to change the law so that it cannot happen again.]
The company has raided the pension funds of the people who work for it to buy property for development. At the same time, it has asked those workers to take a pay cut of 7·5 per cent. This has happened because the Government have changed the regulations on pension schemes. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this as a matter of urgency? Will he draw the matter to the attention of the Chief Secretary, and ask him to amend the Finance Bill, which is now being considered in Committee, so that the practice does not continue?

Mr. MacGregor: I can tell the hon. Gentleman straight away that the Government, as he knows, have already taken action to protect the interests of pension scheme members. No payments may be made out of the resources of a pension scheme unless annual increases are guaranteed. We shall shortly introduce regulations to restrict self-investment by pension funds. We have taken the powers to ensure that pension increases will be the first call on funds' surpluses, although no final decision has yet been taken on when this will be introduced.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Could my right hon. Friend allow us a debate on the mechanics of lending to small businesses? In some obscure corners of the House there is misunderstanding of the meaning of margins and the base rate of lending. There was a perfect example this afternoon when the Leader of the Opposition showed his ignorance of these matters.

Mr. MacGregor: If we had to have a debate every time the Leader of the Opposition displayed his ignorance of financial matters, I would be filling up the time of the House with a great deal of debate.

Mr. David Clelland: The Leader of the House may be aware that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement gave the clear impression on Tuesday, during

defence Questions, that the long-awaited and long-overdue decision on the Challenger 2 tank would be made before the end of the month. Is the Leader of the House aware that this morning the Ministry of Defence was already back-tracking on the assurance and is now saying that that may not be the case? This intolerable situation could well lead to the loss of jobs and damage the livelihood of hundreds of people in the defence industry. Can we have a statement on the matter next week to clear up the issue once and for all?

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement made it clear earlier in the week that we recognise the concern that the decision should not be delayed unnecessarily. We cannot be drawn into a discussion of detail now, but it is the intention to make a further announcement before the end of the month.

Mr. Conal Gregory: With the withdrawal of the conciliation service by the Association of British Travel Agents, saving the association about £700,000, is my right hon. Friend aware that the major means of enabling a person who has booked a holiday either in this country or abroad to seek an appropriate grievance procedure has been removed? With the withdrawal of the service, greater pressure will be placed upon trading standards officers throughout the country. Would it be possible at an early stage to debate the matter, bearing in mind the fact that Britain's fastest growth industry is tourism and that inevitably there will be difficulties between now and the end of the summer? The greatest amount that families spend regularly after the purchase of a motor car is on their holidays, yet ABTA has withdrawn a key element of its service.

Mr. MacGregor: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in tourism matters. I suggest that he might raise the matter to which he has drawn attention in the ways that are available to him in the House.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made in the debate on the Armed Forces Bill on the true effect of the bombs that were dropped by the coalition forces in the Gulf war? The conflict was presented as a clean war, but it was fought with dirty little weapons. It is clear now that only 7 per cent. of the bombs dropped were precision weapons, and that most of those missed their targets. Will he arrange for a statement to be made so that the House can make a judgment on the future use, sale and deployment of fuel-air explosives, cluster bombs and daisycutter bombs, which are weapons of mass slaughter and high-tech barbarism that should be included in the inhumane weapons protocol of 1981?

Mr. MacGregor: It would not be appropriate for me in business questions to be involved in the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question. I think that he is missing the point of the debate on the Armed Forces Bill, which will take place on Monday 17 June. It would not be relevant to raise on that occasion the matters to which he has referred.

Mr. John Wilkinson: May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention early-day motion 921, which stands in the names of 28 right hon. and hon. Members, including myself, on the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas.
[That this House believes that the Gurkhas have a unique record of service in the British Army and loyalty to the British Crown, that their qualities of adaptability and devotion to duty will still be required in the defence of Britain's interests in an uncertain world in the future; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to confirm that the Gurkha Brigade will continue to have a worthwhile and viable future in the British Army as previously declared by the Right honourable Member for Ayr, the former Secretary of State for Defence on 22nd May 1989.]
Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make an early statement to confirm that the brigade has a viable and worthwhile future in the British Army? Unlike the county regiments, it does not have constituency Members to represent it: it looks to all those who are Members of this place to secure its interests. After all, the members of the brigade have with their blood served the British Crown with loyalty, courage and dedication. They deserve that we reciprocate in full measure by ensuring that they have a good future in our Army.

Mr. MacGregor: I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the fine record of the Gurkhas, and associate myself with his remarks, as I am sure the whole House would wish to do. In setting out the way ahead for the future role and size of the Army, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made it clear on June 4 that consultations were taking place in the Army on the future structure of regiments and corps. I know that my hon. Friend will understand that it is not possible to make statements about the future of individual units before that process is complete.

Ms. Joan. Walley: Is the Leader of the House aware of the widespread concern throughout the country about reports of human rights violations in Kashmir? Having been there last week and seen some of the evidence, may I urge the Leader of the House to find time before the summer recess to arrange for a full report or a debate, so that we can see how we can contribute to finding a peaceful and lasting solution to the problems that clearly exist in Kashmir?

Mr. MacGregor: I certainly do not think that I can promise such a debate in Government time, but I shall discuss with my right hon. Friend other ways of saying something on the issue raised by the hon. Lady before the House rises.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that, when the Secretary of State for Defence made his announcement about massive cuts in defence manpower earlier this week, he did not do so in the form of a statement, and there was no debate following the announcement? Therefore, the House has been given no opportunity to hear the Secretary of State explain the changes in our national strategy or the changes in the roles or tasks of the armed forces that justify those defence cuts. May we have not only a debate but an urgent debate on this matter before people get the impression that the Government no longer view defence as their prime duty?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend must know perfectly well that his last comment is totally invalid. It is clear that we give strong priority to defence matters. My right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear some of the changes that will have to be considered in relation to "Options for Change" as a result of the changing world scene. I make it clear to my hon. Friend that we are talking about a consultation document, and I assure him that there will be opportunities to debate such matters in the House at the appropriate time.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to come to the House next week to sort out the conflicting policies pursued by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Defence, given that, at the same time that the Transport Secretary was saying that we should transfer goods from road to rail, at the central ordnance depot at Donnington, in my constituency, the Secretary of State for Defence was arranging that rail should no longer be used as a means of transport from Donnington and the goods should be transferred to road? He said that the rail link from COD Donnington to the main line would therefore be redundant. If the Government believe in rail transport, is it not time that they at least ensured that the rail links to Ministry of Defence depots are kept open?

Mr. MacGregor: Clearly, each specific issue must be looked at in detail, and I do not know the details of that case. Obviously, there will be different solutions to different problems. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend will no doubt have seen the disturbing reports of apparent housing racketeering in the London borough of Hackney, and the suggestion that it may be going on in other boroughs. In view of the shambles in housing in Hackney, where there are empty houses and millions of pounds of uncollected rents, will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to initiate an urgent inquiry and come back to the House with a statement on what is going on?

Mr. MacGregor: The department of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is in touch with Hackney council, and I shall discuss with him the possibility of his reporting to the House when investigations are complete. We already know that Hackney's housing management is very poor. As my right hon. Friend rightly says, there are a large number of vacant properties and disgraceful delays in processing the right to buy for tenants—an aspect about which we already know. For people who have forgotten what it is like to live under a Labour Government, this matter is yet another example of what would happen if Labour were in power. It shows the excessive and unnecessary spending of so many Labour councils. That is one aspect that my hon. Friend the Minister will address.

Sir Ian Lloyd: How much respect does my right hon. Friend think that the Government will earn not only from both sides of the House but from sensible people throughout the country as a result of his recent announcement that we shall have to stay here until 4 o'clock on Tuesday morning to discuss whether an important but simple matter affecting dogs should be decided in the way that he hopes it will be? We all have our own order of priorities. I just happen to have read the extremely important debate in the upper House on three Select Committee reports on science and technology, a


subject that we have not discussed for five or six years. Yet we have to stay here until 4 o'clock in the morning to discuss this important but quite extraordinary matter. Is there no alternative?

Mr. MacGregor: Science and technology is frequently discussed in the Chamber, but I believe that there will be great respect in the country both for the speed with which the Government have acted to introduce the Dangerous Dogs Bill and the speed with which the House will act on the matter. This is a matter of great urgency. The general view from the House this afternoon seems to be that it is a straightforward and relatively simple Bill, and if that is the case I hope that it can he enacted quickly so that we can protect innocent people from the dangers that exist.
If it transpires that there is general agreement, we may end the proceedings well before 4 am. I am trying to achieve a balance between dealing with the matter quickly, as I think the country wants, and giving sufficient time for the Bill to be properly debated.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend find time shortly for a debate on the citizens charter whereby citizens can expect a decent service and if they do not get that they get compensation? Was it not left to the Conservative party to give parents, council tenants and trade union members their rights? It seems that it will be left to the Conservative party yet again to give the ordinary person in the street his rights.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. Giving choice, opportunity and rights to citizens, whether they be patients, parents or trade union members, is a theme which has run strongly through so many of our policies, and it will continue to do so. It will therefore be a theme of many of our debates in the months ahead.

Mr. David Nicholson: May I support the request by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) for an early debate on transport strategy, because Conservative Members have good cause to welcome the change of emphasis and the excellent speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for

Transport to the Financial Times conference last week—particularly the emphasis laid on transporting more freight by rail. Is my right hon. Friend aware that that would enable me to make the point that Taunton Cider in my constituency, despite the withdrawal of British Rail's Speedlink, should be enabled to transport its freight by rail and not clutter up the roads?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made his point already.

Mr. George Walden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Gentleman here for the statement?

Mr. Walden: No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Then it is difficult for him to ask a question on it.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the three motions relating to the Scottish Grand Committee.

Ordered,
That the Matter of Scottish higher and further education, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.
That the Matter of local government structure and finance in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.
That the Matter of constitutional issues in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Boswell.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, if the Dangerous Dogs Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed; and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Dangerous Dogs Bill [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Orders of the Day — School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 2

RESOURCES FOR REMUNERATION AWARDS

'( )—(1) Sections 2(1) and 2(5) above shall have effect subject to the provisions of this section.
(2) Any order made or issued under sections 2(1) or 2(5) above in respect of the remuneration of teachers shall be accompanied by a statement that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the resources available to local education authorities in the financial year concerned are (or, in the case of a subsequent financial year, will be) adequate to enable each such authority to make payment to school teachers in that financial year in accordance with section 2(6)(a) above without consequential diminishment of resources available to it for other expenditure.
(3) Where an order in respect of the remuneration of teachers made in accordance with sections 2(1) or 2(5) has effect in more than one financial year, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a further statement otherwise in accordance with subsection (2) above in respect of each such year before the start of that year:.'.—[Mr. Fatchett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We debated the Bill at some length in Committee and now on Report, as a matter of normal procedure, the Bill carries the words "As amended in Standing Committee A". It is difficult to recall any amendments that were made to the Bill in Committee or any arguments to which Ministers were prepared to listen in Committee. It must be extremely worrying for people outside, who initially may have warmed to the idea of a pay review body, to discover that Ministers refused to listen to the arguments that were advanced in Committee, especially those on the conditions attached to its work.
The Secretary of State has returned from his visit to Japan. He spoke this morning on the "Today" programme about his pay review body. The way in which he warmed to the National Union of Teachers was an interesting new phenomenon, or was it just in contrast to how he feels about the British Medical Association? It may have been the latter.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman tried hard to sell the notion of the pay review body, perhaps not so much as a principle but in terms of the possible or promised outcomes. On hearing that, I thought that he would warm to new clause 2. I was not aware that he would respond to the debate, but my premonition was well founded because not only has he warmed to new clause 2 but I assume that he will show his ministerial colleagues that concessions can be made on the back of a sound argument. As always, a sound argument will be advanced for the new clause.
New clause 2 deals with the funding of pay review body awards and aims to ensure that local government does not find itself in the untenable position of having to meet an award that is not fully funded by the Government. The problem changes substantially as a result of the creation of the pay review body. The Secretary of State will recall the

Green Paper that was published in October 1987, when the Government opposed a pay review body. Paragraph 7.18 said that the other groups covered by pay review bodies differ from teachers as,
For all these groups, the Government is the employer or direct paymaster.
That is not true of teachers. The direct employer may now be a school, and the local education authority. The paymaster will be the local education authority and, for a few grant-maintained schools, the Department of Education and Science.
New clause 2 aims to avoid the pay review body facing one or two problems, or perhaps both. The pay review body may make an award higher than the financial support that is made available to local government under the revenue support grant system. If so, local government faces a problem: does it pay teachers in full—presumably it has a statutory responsibility to do so—and be forced to cut other services, including education? That is one consequence.
The other consequence has worried many teachers and their organisations. Under the Bill, it is possible for the Secretary of State to impose conditions on the way in which the pay review body works. Will one of those conditions be preset in terms of the revenue support to local government? If so, the notion of a free and independent pay review body does not bear close examination. The pay review body would be similar to the interim advisory committee, and it would operate in a financial envelope. It may have come as no surprise to teachers and their organisations when the Minister of State—I think that it was a slip of the tongue but nevertheless a not unimportant one—referred in Committee to the pay review body following on and being similar to the interim advisory committee, which worked with a pre-determined financial envelope. In that event, there is danger that the pay review body will not be independent and be able to make the same kind of expansive commitments that the Secretary of State seemed to hint at in his radio interview this morning. Instead, the pay review body will be constrained and limited.
A further cause for concern is the Government's record, if one takes the interim advisory committee as the model. They may say that that is not a fair model, but the Conservative party's own brief asks its Back Benchers to sell the pay review body on the basis that it was developed from, and is a continuation of, the IAC.
It is clear that the Government have not been prepared fully to fund pay awards recommended by the IAC. In 1988, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), replied to a written question of typical originality from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). It asked the Secretary of State when the report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions would be published. With his usual perception, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth just happened to arrange for his question to appear on the day that the report was about to be published.

Mr. James Pawsey: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Order Paper for yesterday, he will see that I tabled no fewer than eight specific and individual questions, all relating to teachers' pay—a matter in which Conservative Members display considerable interest.

Mr. Fatchett: It is not my intention to criticise the hon. Gentleman's diligence. I was merely praising his ability to plant questions at the right time, to ensure that they receive the right answers. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman in that way performs a very valuable service to the machinery of Government.
The Secretary of State's reply to that written question set out the details of the IAC report, and stated in paragraph 7:
Nor is it intended to revise the RSG"—
that is, rate support grant—
settlements for 1988–89 on account of the proposals set out in paragraph 2 to 6 above."—[Official Report, 19 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 398.]
In other words, the IAC's recommendations were not met in full. There was a 10 per cent. overload in the money going to local government, which had to be met by cutting education and other services.
A year later—and this must have been a mistake on the part of the Department—a question came from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am sure that the relationship between him and the Government is not so good that his question was planted, but in any event it received a reply from the then junior education Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). It stated:
The salary Bill for school teachers in England will rise by some £440 million in the financial year 1989–90. This is £80 million above the England element of the original limit proposed.
He added that the effect of the
reduction in the cost of employers' contributions to teachers superannuation will be to reduce the school teachers salary bill by about £25 million. The remaining £55 million to be borne by local education authorities represents less than 0.4 per cent. of local authority education provision."—[Official Report, 16 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 127.]
As in the previous year, the award was not met in full by the Government and could be honoured only by cuts in local authority expenditure.
In the subsequent two years, the Government adopted a new tactic—not one that has excited teachers tremendously. Instead of meeting the award in full—or at least ordering its payment in full—they have said that it should be phased in over the financial year. That means teachers do not receive the full amount. The Government may argue that the rate support grant covers the full amount of the two phased increases. If that is the case, it has been done at the cost of teachers and their salaries. If—as local authorities would argue—that is not the case, it is at the cost of the jobs of teachers and others, and of services.
We need to know what are the Government's intentions in respect of funding pay review body awards. Do they intend to meet those awards in full, or simply to tell local government, "This is what teachers should be paid—but we are not prepared to make the full amount available."? If that is all that the Government can offer, it is a very bad deal for teachers. They will have a legitimate right to feel concerned about their security, their jobs, investment in the education service and its future, and about other local government services. There is no point in having a pay review body if teachers have to pay the cost, and suffer the consequences, of the awards that it makes. I hope that the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to confirm that it is the Government's intention to meet the full cost of any future pay review body award.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: My question arises out of some of the changes to the structure of education announced by the Government in recent weeks—though I recognise that the relevant legislation has yet to be introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) asked about the Government's plans for funding review board pay awards. What will be the position in respect of teachers in sixth form colleges or in the sixth form of a high school—in which case they may also teach in lower forms as a result of the changes of recent years. In the case of someone working at a tertiary college that is run directly—and I accept that there are to be trusts, and all the rest of it—will the title "teacher" still be used generically, and refer also to those who are paid as lecturers at grades I and II, and at all the other grades that exist in sixth form and tertiary colleges?

Mr. Michael Carr: New clause 2 draws attention to a serious problem confronting local authorities and the governing bodies of locally-managed schools. Many governing bodies in my own county of Lancashire and in many others throughout England and Wales face serious decisions because the salary budgets for their schools do not allow them to meet the full cost of paying their existing staff. That will inevitably result in redundancies, have a consequent effect on the schools' curriculums, and further seriously damage teacher morale—which is already at a low ebb, and which has been caused entirely by Conservative Administrations.
It is essential that any future pay award recommended by the review body should be sanctioned and met in full by the Secretary of State. It should be fully funded by the Government, and not left to LEAs or to individual school governing bodies to make teachers redundant so that they can balance their books.
I hope that the Secretary of State will agree this afternoon to fund in full any pay increases recommended by the statutory review body. I wholly support the sentiments behind new clause 2, though its wording may leave a little to be desired in achieving the desired effect.

Mr. George Walden: I do not think that the new clause is necessary. I have great confidence in my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when it comes to the appropriate treatment of teachers. Having said that, however, I want to pick up one of the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett).
The hon. Gentleman talked of the danger that any future need for the fulfilment of a pay obligation on the part of local authorities might lead to a reduction in the number of teachers. That leads me to the question of class sizes. We do not merely need better-paid teachers of higher quality—although the head of the National Association of Head Teachers has recently drawn attention to the current poor quality of teachers, judged by academic standards We also need a lower teacher-pupil ratio.
I am familiar with the figures, and I know that they do the Government credit. My constituency and many others, however, contain primary schools with classes numbering more than 30 pupils. We shall not be able to fulfil the requirements of the national curriculum with classes of


that size; nor shall we be able to raise educational standards throughout the country to match some of those on the continent.
I hesitate to give Opposition Members any crumb of comfort. As I have said, I have abounding confidence in my right hon. and learned Friend, and entirely recognise that he cannot buy a pig in a poke and announce that the Government will meet whatever requirements the pay review body may come up with, regardless of the economic contingencies. He is bound to wish to maintain reserves, as would the Labour party if—God forbid—it were in government.
Our record on class sizes is good, but it must become much better. Certainly there must be no question of larger classes resulting, however inadvertently, from the operation of the pay review body.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: I support new clause 2. Knowsley had to cut its budget by £4 million this year to contain its poll tax within the cap, thus ending up with a budget £7 million lower than—according to its calculations—was necessary to maintain services at the appropriate level. Obviously, given the proportion of the budget that is allocated to education, the cuts fell heavily on that service.
The education cuts resulted in 100 teacher redundancies, including a number of enforced redundancies, and cuts in schools' delegated budgets. Schools now cannot afford experienced staff, and are forced to hire the cheapest teachers whom they can find—which is not necessarily the best way of supporting the curriculum. As schools shed staff, classes become larger; at the same time, increasing demands are made on teachers in connection with testing. Non-teaching staff numbers are also being cut, which removes the necessary classroom support from the hard-pressed teachers who remain.
Knowsley has an excellent record in nursery provision, but the nursery schools can no longer be staffed. Swimming lessons are, I trust, high on the Government's agenda, but the authority has had to close one learner pool, and another is under threat. I understand that "parents in partnership" and community education are also high on the agenda, but Knowsley's programme, into which it has put considerable effort and resources, is now in jeopardy.
The youth service has been decimated, and instrumental music provision is also in danger. A school of which I am a governor has had its peripatetic music-teaching allocation cut by 50 per cent. Knowsley, although a disadvantaged authority, has a proud record in instrumental music: its youth orchestra and choir annually fill the stage of the Liverpool Philharmonic hall to overflowing, and fill the auditorium to capacity with supporters. The Knowsley youth orchestra and choir are the only such pair to have been invited in recent years to perform at the National Festival of Music for Youth, and the youth orchestra is one of the few to have been invited a second time this year.
That proud programme is now jeopardised. I understand from correspondence that I have received this week that the National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales is to include Knowsley in

a group of authorities that it will examine closely to assess the affect of school budget cuts on instrumental music teaching.
Cuts in school building maintenance have also been made. I believe that there is a national shortfall of £4 billion in maintenance funds; according to the professional estimate, £8,397,000 is needed to maintain Knowsley's school buildings, but the authority can afford to allocate less than £2·5 million.
Knowsley could not cope with a shortfall in rate support grant funding without doing further serious damage to education. If the Government believe that the extra money could be raised through their sanctioning a levy of poll tax revenue, I can only say that the Secretary of State should read some of the correspondence that I am now receiving from my constituents, who ask me how on earth they can be expected to pay their bills.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) began by saying that he had done me the courtesy of listening to what I said on this morning's "Today" programme. Although I am flattered to learn that he may have paid some attention to my remarks, I realise that he did not switch on his radio to listen to me. To prepare his case on new clause 2—and, no doubt, his case on the whole Bill—he listened, dutifully and attentively, to the words of Mr. Doug McAvoy, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, who was sitting opposite me. I hope that the hon. Gentleman dutifully stood to attention as Mr. McAvoy's dulcet tones went over the air.
Mr. McAvoy is of course the real opposition spokesman on the Bill; it has nothing to do with the official Opposition. When we observe the extraordinary spectacle of Opposition Members trying, on Report, to find arguments such as those contained in new clause 2 to justify their continued opposition to the idea of a review body, we realise that they are completely in the pocket of the NUT. That is the only explanation for their continued advocacy of the right to take industrial action, the right to engage in free collective bargaining, and all the trappings of industrial relations to which they still adhere—contrary to the advice of the other five teachers' unions and, I believe, that of most sensible members of the public.
The Opposition's scratching around for reasons to oppose the review body proposals is becoming rather pathetic. This morning, I discussed with Mr. McAvoy the extraordinary advertisements that the NUT has decided to use. It appears to think that pictures of me walking down the steps will sell newspapers. That is very nice of the union, but it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Similarly, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central has had to table new clause 2, and has had to scrape the bottom of the barrel in his search for arguments to justify his continuing resistance to the Government's resolve to give teachers proper professional status, and to settle their pay in a sensible fashion by heeding the advice of an independent review body unless there are clear and compelling reasons not to do so, which is what Governments have always recommended.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I must draw to the attention of the Secretary of State the fact that he has so far not referred to the new clause. I very much hope that he will get to it soon.

5 pm

Mr. Clarke: I have referred to the new clause in exactly the same terms as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). If I may, I will continue to deal with the arguments that you earlier ruled in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman's first argument was to raise again the idea that the new clause was needed because of the pre-determined financial envelope within which the review body might have to operate. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—because we said so in our first announcement and on Second Reading and it was said repeatedly in Standing Committee—that one of the principal differences between the interim advisory committee and the new review body is that the new body will not operate within a predetermined financial envelope. To raise that argument yet again is to return to a wholly failed and false argument and to try to arouse people's suspicions of the review body proposals.

Mr. Jack Straw: Does the Secretary of State understand this point? It is not a question of challenging directly the veracity of the words that he used. Those of us who have been on the Opposition Benches for some time—a time that will shortly come to an end—have had too much experience of being promised from the Dispatch Box things which are then not delivered or are overturned by successive Ministers.
I give two examples. The first involves a categorical undertaking given during the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988 that no grant-maintained school's character could be changed within five years. The Minister said that there was no need to accept amendments when the Government had given an undertaking in the House that a provision would not be changed. The second example involves the statement made this time last year on the Floor of the House by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), about the students' vacation hardship allowance—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Straw: I am illustrating a point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Chelsea said that the Government justified the withdrawal of housing benefit—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about grant-maintained schools and housing benefit. There is no reference to them in the new clause.

Mr. Straw: That undertaking was also broken. My question to the Secretary of State is this: given the track record of Ministers giving undertakings to the House and then breaking them, why should we accept his undertaking now without it being written in the Bill?

Mr. Clarke: On Second Reading the hon. Gentleman did not once mention the words "pay review body". Surely he cannot have come here again merely to launch into a series of interventions and speeches not remotely related to the subject that we are discussing. He is ashamed of opposing the Bill and he does not want to talk about it. He will not dare to give his opinion on a review body for teachers, but he is backing up his hon. Friend's feeble efforts to find reasons for undermining a policy that he

knows is popular with teachers. He knows that the Bill states plainly that the review body will not operate within a predetermined financial envelope.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central said that I was misleading the House by suggesting that teachers might do quite well under the new arrangements and he wished to challenge that claim. Of course, no one can predict what the independent review body will recommend. The Government are submitting themselves to the objective judgment of a body which will recommend the right pay, terms and conditions for teachers.
We are moving towards the review body from a background where the funding of education and teachers has already done very well under this Government. During the lifetime of the Government, funding for pupils has increased by 40 per cent. and teachers' pay has increased by 30 per cent. in real terms. During the lifetime of the last Labour Government, it increased by 6 per cent. in real terms. During the lifetime of this Government, the 30 per cent. real terms increase in teachers' pay has been significantly exceeded by that of doctors and dentists as the Government have acted on the recommendations of the review body for those professions. The same has happened for nurses and midwives as the Government have acted on the recommendations of their review body. On that basis, some teachers—those in shortage subjects, those with good classroom performance and those who commit themselves to a life-long career in teaching—have every reason to be confident in their expectations about the recommendations that a review body would make.
The new clause suggests that the recommendations might somehow be jeopardised by the failure to certify that express sums of money should be made available to finance an award of which the Government approve. The new clause deals with that in a curious way. There is no such thing as a hypothecated revenue for any particular part of local government expending. At no time do the Government separately identify a sum of money which is available only for teachers' pay and nothing else. However, the Government now identify each year in the standard spending assessment that part of the block grant for local government which they believe should be made available for education. Within that, there are many variables which those responsible for managing schools at the moment—mainly the local authorities—must take into account. Expenditure on staff costs is only a part of the total costs in education and those responsible must judge the priorities among staff, buildings and other services.
Although new clause 2 is not relevant to local government spending as it is now organised—there are no such hypothecated sums—I shall deal with the fear expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) that underfunding may set back yet further his proper desire to see a reduction in class sizes in primary schools. I shall also deal with the speech made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) about cuts in Lancashire and that made by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) by explaining what happened this year. This year has not been mentioned by any of the members of the Opposition who have spoken so far except in terms of cuts and difficulties.
This year's standard spending assessment total for the forthcoming financial year will be increased by 16 per cent. compared with that for 1990–91. That is in a year when inflation, as we know, is falling rapidly. We are talking about inflation of approximately 5 per cent. during the


course of the year, so the increase in real terms will be about 10 per cent. When that standard spending assessment was set, I do not think that it was clear to what extent inflation would fall by the end of the year, but the Government set it to reflect what we properly anticipated would be the salary costs of teachers.
The assessment was set to allow for three elements. First, it was set to allow for a pay award reflecting the remit given to the interim advisory committee last September. The decision that we have taken in the light of the advice given by the IAC is within that remit. Secondly, there was an element for pay discretions on which the Government are very keen—we allowed £140 million for expenditure on discretionary pay awards in England. Thirdly, there was an element for the follow-through costs of last year's pay award, which was phased. An allowance was built into the standard spending assessment to cover the full year's costs of an end-loaded settlement last year.
It is quite clear that there is no question of any authority not being able to afford the consequences of the Government's decision to fund the IAC's recommendation.

Mr. Fatchett: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment.
This is not the occasion to start debating the individual problems of schools in Knowsley or Lancashire, or even the prospect of reductions in class sizes in Buckingham. However, it is absolute nonsense to recite, as two members of the Opposition did, a litany of complaints this year and to imply that they have something to do with a failure to increase the standard spending assessment to cover teachers' pay. If there are difficulties in some areas—I realise that there are some in Knowsley—it is a reflection on the capacity of councils to manage their education budgets, and the consequences of past overspending in areas other than education. It is a red herring to say that the Government do not finance their own decisions.
Of course, it is implicit in our proposals that, given that it will be the Prime Minister's review body, the Prime Minister will receive advice, consult with his Cabinet colleagues and then make a decision. Of course the Government must take decisions for which they know that resources are reasonably available in a well managed authority to be able to provide for the consequences of that decision.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the standard spending assessment for 1991–92, as against the budget for 1990–91 for local authorities, shows an 8·8 per cent. increase? The interim advisory committee's report recommendation for teachers' pay for 1991–92 shows an increase of 11·3 per cent. Will the Secretary of State now give the real figures to the House?

Mr. Clarke: The comparison with the budget, which is about 9 per cent., I do not accept. That would be to accept that the overspending contained within many of those budgets—for education and a wide range of other matters—is absolutely fixed. We all know that within an education budget there are a wide range of variables. The figures that I have given are accurate. It is simply not the case that the Government's funding of local government has failed to match the Government's decisions on the interim advisory

committee. If local authorities have recklessly drawn on reserves, overspent in the past and taken decisions which have nothing to do with teachers' pay, it is complete nonsense, in a year when SSAs are up by 16 per cent., to say that the cuts that they are now imposing on their schools because of their incompetence are a result of a Government decision and a result of the independent advisory committee's recommendation.

Mr. Fatchett: The logic of the Secretary of State's argument is that he is supporting imposed cuts in local authority budgets and expenditure on education. The reality is that the increase as against budgets is only 8·8 per cent. In the circumstances, the Secretary of State's only resort is to argue that local authorities are overspending on education. If that is his argument and his case, he should spend more time talking to thousands of parents who see the shortage of funding in our schools. He should spend a little time talking to his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham who, with some ministerial experience in the Department of Education and Science, understands the shortfall in education expenditure and the implications of it.

Mr. Clarke: The relevant figure is the 16 per cent. that I have described. I shall give an example which I know well because it has been raised with me. In Derbyshire, councillors are making serious cuts in their education provision this year. For some curious reason, they are cutting out the county orchestra. They are cutting staff numbers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Labur party in Derbyshire is freezing school meal prices at their 1981 level. If it were to go back on that daft decision, it would be able to afford most of the cuts that it is making in its music provision and in staffing levels.
Warwickshire is increasing its spending on education—[Interruption.] Yes, it is. Warwickshire is increasing its education spending by £1 million. I have been over this matter with the chief education officer of Warwickshire. The situation is presented in the most obscure way by county councils when they present their figures. They are switching spending from some heads to spending on other heads. They have created difficulties for themselves by drawing heavily on reserves in the past without knowing whether they would be replaced in future, and what they are switching money from is now described as a cut. It is not a consequence of the implementation of the interim advisory committee's recommendations on pay.
My own county of Nottinghamshire made a tremendous performance of making cuts of £7 million. After trying for seven months, I have been able to discover what the million reduction is. Nottinghamshire is increasing its real terms spending on education, admittedly by a small amount. It is switching from one head to another and it is describing what it is cutting as cuts. Again, on the back of a 15 per cent. to 16 per cent. increase in the standard spending assessment, that has nothing whatever to do with an alleged underfunding of the teachers' pay settlement.
The Labour party advocates with more vehemence than I sometimes do the principle of local authority control of education. If we are to have local authority management of education we should have proper accountability. People should actually take responsibility for their decisions. It is quite pathetic that, every time one county council or another makes an extraordinary decision to cut parts of its


teaching profession, the official Opposition give credibility to the crazy claim that it is something to do with teacher's pay not being funded by central Government. That is not the history. If in future the review body were to make recommendations which had not been anticipated by the Government, the Government would have to face the fact that when a Government take a decision, particularly on the authority of their Prime Minister, that Government must consider carefully whether that decision can properly be funded. Normally, I would expect the standard spending assessment to cover it, but it might not. One then must ask whether efficiencies in other areas are reasonably possible. One may have to phase the award, or the Government may have to face the fact that it is reasonable to make extra provision above that originally planned in order to provide the necessary funding which the Prime Minister has authorised.
5.15 pm
The very act of setting up a review body, as we have shown in other services, is a commitment by the Government to take independent advice unless there are clear and compelling reasons to the contrary. It falls to the Government to find the major part of the funding for those decisions. Now that we finally have the local government contribution down to a smaller proportion of the overall cost of local government, and have committed ourselves to keeping the community charge and, ultimately, the council tax share down to a lower proportion, the Government must of course have regard to the funding consequences of decisions. However, for the reasons that I touched on earlier, we do not need this new clause or anything like it to give effect to that.
If any undertakings need to be given about implementing review bodies or about funding consequences, they should be made by the Opposition. As we set up the review body, we still do not know whether the Labour party is committed to it or whether it would repeal it. Could teachers be allowed to know whether a Labour Government would abolish the review body or, if they would not abolish it, whether they would fund its recommendations in full? Do Labour Members reject the constant reserve that clear and compelling reasons justify a Government modifying it? Frankly, the Labour party will not come to power if it plays the games that it has played in relation to the review body so far and commits itself to backing a policy being forced upon the National Union of Teachers by all the militants at the conference at Easter and forced upon the Labour party—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see how those matters can conceivably arise under the new clause. The Secretary of State will stick to the new clause.

Mr. Clarke: I always have the greatest respect for your decisions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my remarks seem to have some bearing on resources and the funding of awards, which is what new clause 2 is all about.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State talked about the policy of the Labour party. That subject does not arise under the new clause. It might be relevant on Third Reading. Perhaps he will defer it until then.

Mr. Clarke: On the condition that, if I am making good progress, you will still declare me to be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There will be no conditions. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now address the new clause.

Mr. Clarke: I think that I am entitled to ask. Mr. Deputy Speaker, within the terms of new clause 2, in exactly what way the Labour party is putting it forward and what commitment it has behind it. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central has been advocating that the new clause is required to oblige the Government to fund their decisions. I have explained how the Government have funded decisions in the past and will fund their decisions reasonably in future. The only time the review body system has been in serious difficulties of a kind relevant to the new clause was not in this Government's period of office. In 1970, the doctors' and dentists' review body resigned when the then Government refused to implement its recommendations and referred the matter to the then pay policy body—or whatever it was called, which I cannot remember. This Government have implemented in full the review body recommendations. People have received the benefits because the funds have been available to pay them. The Labour Government reneged on a review body arrangement and broke their word to the doctors. For that reason, on Third Reading the Opposition should clarify their policy and, as they continue to oppose a review body, they should explain what they would put in its place.

Mr. Fatchett: It is always clear when the Secretary of State has a weak script and a weak argument because the quantity of red herrings increases and the volume of the bluster increases at the same time.
I want to correct the record in respect of three points made by the Secretary of State. First, he came out with his normal red herring about the right to take industrial action. Anyone who served on the Standing Committee or who has had more than a passing knowledge of or interest in the Bill will realise that there is no reference to industrial action in the Bill. It is a shame that the Secretary of State has not had time to read his own Bill.
Secondly, the Secretary of State said that the Labour party was stuck in a position of supporting collective bargaining. The Secretary of State has a very short memory. Only a few weeks ago, he brought a Bill to the House that was based on the principles of collective bargaining. He said that that was the best way to make progress. He was either right then, in which case he has now shifted his argument, or he was wrong and was misleading the House about his views. The simple fact is that back in November he told us that he supported collective bargaining. On that same evening, he proudly announced that each of the candidates for the Tory party leadership also supported the principle of collective bargaining for teachers.
Finally, the Secretary of State tried to shift the argument on to a predetermined financial envelope for the review body. That was not the argument. As I made clear, the argument was about funding local authorities so that they can pay teachers.
The Secretary of State's most interesting comment was that the standard spending assessments may not cover all the costs of the pay review award. That is the message that will go to local government from this debate.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No.

Mr. Fatchett: That is what the Secretary of State said.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My recollection is that I said what the Government would have to do if we found that the previously determined set of SSAs did not meet the costs and I described a variety of options. I have made it clear that a Government who take decisions must have regard to the funding of those decisions. I stuck to that throughout my speech. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) did not say what decision the Opposition would take on any of those aspects.

Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State is again trying to shift his ground. We were not arguing that Governments do not have to take account of financial considerations. The Secretary of State can check the record. He said that there will be occasions when the SSAs might not cover the full cost of the pay review award. He did not make it clear that the Government would meet the difference. The message to local government and teachers from this debate is that there is absolutely no guarantee that the Government will meet the costs of a pay award from the pay review body. That is worrying.
That is the record of the IAC and the record that has led to the problems in educational expenditure to which my right hon. and hon. Friends referred. Those problems were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden).
We realise that the new clause does not and cannot persuade the Government to fund to local authorities the full extent of the pay award. We needed a short debate to discover the Government's intentions. We have done that and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

ESTABLISHMENT OF REVIEW BODY TO CONSIDER STATUTORY CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF SCHOOL TEACHERS

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 5, after 'shall', insert
`after consultation with those representing the interests of local education authorities, school teachers and governers,'.
The amendment has the merit of being simple, brief and overwhelmingly convincing. Indeed, it is not a planted amendment, an allegation that I understand was made in my absence about a sophisticated question that I tabled some time ago.

Mr. Fatchett: That was meant to be praise.

Mr. Hughes: I am always grateful to receive praise from the hon. Gentleman.
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the purpose of the amendment. It is intended to ensure that a consultation process is written into the Bill before the pay review body is established. As the pay review body is set up, the various bodies with obvious interests should be consulted and those should involve local education authorities, teachers and governors. I must point out that the spelling of "governors" on the amendment paper is not my responsibility. It is inaccurate and I fear that it is a printer's error. It is not the fault of the draftsmen.
I have heard many Government replies to amendments like amendment No. 5 and I can anticipate the Minister's reply. He may say that this is not something that needs to

be written into the Bill. He may also say that the composition of the review body is set out in the schedule and that is true. He will say that there are regulations about the procedures of the review body in the schedule and that is also true. He will also say that there is enough guidance for the review body set out in clause 1 to ensure that it does its job properly.
As the Minister will understand—and this point will be raised again when we consider amendment No. 9—everyone interested in this subject and those affected by it are concerned about the independence of the review body. They can express their views most forcefully about that by writing in a consultation clause. I hope that the overwhelming and unequivocal merit of the amendment will commend itself to the Government and that they will prove to be conciliatory and supportive of those in the profession. I hope that we can end this debate in a few minutes without a Division or acrimony.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): I welcome the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to our debate, even at this late stage. I apologise for having to give him the reply that he anticipated.
The review body is not a negotiating committee, as I am sure he is aware. It is not constituted from nominees representing the various interested parties. The members of the review body will be chosen by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as the people best fitted to give him independent advice. We have made it clear all along that we intend the school teachers' review body to operate on exactly the same basis as the other review bodies, which are not and have never been constituted of representatives of different parts of the profession whose pay they determined. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey may be interested to know that the health service review bodies specifically exclude representatives of those involved in the health service professions whose pay they determine.
There has never been a suggestion that the other review bodies have not been sufficiently informed or understanding about the professions involved. I am not aware of any doubts that have been raised about their competence. The amendment may be intended to ensure that the interested parties can put forward names for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to consider. If that is the case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured to learn that they will be free to do that. However, to write in a requirement to consult along the lines suggested in the amendment would be contrary to the principle of an independent review body.
It might follow from the amendment that appointments should be made only if all or a majority of interested parties are content with a particular name. That would clearly be unworkable as each party would want to see its own interest represented. As I have said, the intention is to establish not a representative body but an independent one. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make appointments to the new review body, exactly as he does to the existing review bodies. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, having reflected on that, will withdraw his amendment. If not, I must advise my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister's and the Government's line is predictable. The answers do not address the specific point. The best that the civil servants could do was to address the answers to a related point. The amendment suggests that there should be consultation before an independent body is set up. I do not ask that there should be representatives of interest groups on the review body. I understand that it is an independent review body.
One matter which the Minister might well anticipate that the people listed in the amendment might have as their interest is whether the body is really independent. In the debate on amendment No. 9, we shall debate whether the
body will be serviced independently. The Minister said something that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) may have heard—that this review body would be like all the others. One way in which it does not yet appear that it will be like all the others is that it will have an independent secretariat serviced by the Office of Manpower Economics. If this body is to be like all the others, one factor that the people listed in the amendment will want to ensure before it is set up is that it will have that independence.
I hear what the Minister says, but I do not find it satisfactory. The people who will be affected by the body will not find it satisfactory either. The Prime Minister will receive advice. The list of the great and the good will be trawled. Why cannot he also receive advice from the people most affected?

Mr. Fallon: He will.

Mr. Hughes: Then that is fine. They have been told by the Minister that they can submit names. But we also ask that they be consulted. The Minister said that the Government were not willing to write that into the Bill or to undergo a consultative process before setting up the review body. That is sad. The other place may find it sad and may be able to deliver the votes to make sure that the proposal goes through. It is often amendments such as this which are accepted in the other place, as the Minister well knows.
Hoping, as we often have to do, that the other unelected House will come to our rescue, I am willing, although reluctantly, to seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that amendment No. 1 is not to be moved. Therefore, we come to amendment No. 9.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 8, line 11, at end insert—

'Secretariat

4A(1) The Chairman may appoint one or more employees as he thinks fit to perform all or part of the functions of an independent secretariat to the review body.
(2) The Chairman shall pay to his employee or employees such remuneration and allowances as he may determine.
(3) The employee or employees shall be appointed on such other terms and conditions as he may determine.
(4) A determination under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) above requires the approval of the Secretary of State given with the consent of the Treasury.

4B(1) Notwithstanding paragraph 4A above, the Chairman may commission any person, body or organisation to perform all or any remaining part of the functions of an independent secretariat.

(2) The Chairman shall pay to any person, body or organisation commissioned under sub-paragraph (1) above such fees as he may determine.
(3) A determination under sub-paragraph (2) above requires the approval of the Secretary of State given with the consent of the Treasury.
4C Any expenses arising under paragraphs 4A or 4B above shall be met by the Secretary of State.'.

I was interested to hear what the Secretary of State had to say. I welcome him back from Japan. He has obviously missed the fact that the majority of teaching unions are unhappy with the pay review body as it is currently proposed, and with the Bill. Unless the amendment is accepted, we shall be confident that the majority of organisations are against the Bill and support opposition to the Bill.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): So the hon. Lady opposes the Bill.

Ms. Armstrong: The Minister of State is very impatient. I do not want to raise his blood pressure any more today. Perhaps it would help if he simply listened a little.
The other interesting thing about the speech of the Secretary of State was that he kept reminding us of the value of other pay review bodies, as did his junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). But, of course, one of the major problems with this pay review body, as the hon. Member for Southwark, and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, is that it is not like other pay review bodies. It gives the teachers' organisations no confidence that the body will be able to act with the independence and determination that other pay review bodies have had. It is in the light of that that I move the amendment.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to take hon. Members through the amendment. It starts by saying that
The Chairman may appoint one or more employees as he thinks fit.
That would put the pay review body in line with other such bodies. The interim advisory committee was serviced by members who were seconded from the Department of Education and Science. Valuable and worthwhile as their work was—I am sure that as individuals those members were honourable and upright and strove to sustain their independence—teachers do not have confidence that a similar method of servicing the new body would sustain its independence, whatever the nature of the Government in power.
The amendment specifically seeks to give the pay review body power to determine the nature of its secretariat and from where it seeks its support in developing, seeking and compiling the additional information on many matters which we—and, indeed, the Secretary of State—wish it to examine. I am sure that the body would need to examine issues such as the London allowance. Indeed, the IAC has said that the new body would have to examine such issues.
The amendment would give the new body power over the new secretariat and the power to commission additional work to support the work of the secretariat. I cannot emphasise strongly enough how critical we, arid both employers and teachers, believe the amendment is. It worries me that the Government have not tabled a similar amendment. They never accept the wording of our amendments. They are always happy to tell us that our


wording is not perfect. In those circumstances, I hoped that the Government would table amendments today. However, I hope that, in the absence of that, they will reassure us that they will table amendments in another place.
The Under-Secretary responded to requests from the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) in Committee, as reported in column 87 of Hansard. He recognised that it was important that the secretariat was perceived to be independent. His answer referred back to the practice of the IAC. The answer was not acceptable, certainly to the Opposition. Neither is it acceptable to the National Association of Head Teachers or the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. Neither of those organisations is happy with the Bill proceeding without a guarantee of the power to fund independent advice, knowledge and support through an independent secretariat.
We have heard many blandishments from the Secretary of State today and outside the House. We have heard blandishments from junior Ministers about their wish to enhance through a teachers' pay review body the professional status of teachers. They will remain blandishments if the Government do not give the pay review body the independent status which teachers and employers seek. The Government cannot say, "Yes, we want you to have professional status, but we are not prepared to let you outside the clutches of the DES for the nature of your information and your secretariat." That is not to say anything wrong about the DES.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Lady keeps saying how critical the amendment is and how blandishments will remain blandishments unless we give the undertaking she seeks. If she were satisfied that the review body would have an independent secretariat, would the Labour party change its mind about its opposition to the review body? Is the matter that critical?

Ms. Armstrong: I might be a new Member, but I am not that new or green. We would need to see the nature of that independence and the wording before we gave assurances —[Interruption.] Conservative Members like to wind me up and I care so passionately about education that I often let them get away with it. Even so, I will not fall into the trap that the right hon. and learned Gentleman sets for me.
We want from the Government a sense of sanity and reasonableness. Even in my darker moments, I like to believe that everyone, including members of the Government, act with the best of intentions. While I want to believe that they do, we must have evidence from them about the Government's commitment to the independence of this body, and to do that they must ensure that it has the same powers as other pay review bodies, none of which has the type of secondment arrangement that the Bill proposes for the secretariat. All other such bodies have power to decide how their secretariats shall be employed, and they all use the Office of Manpower Economics.
The pay review body applying to teachers should have the same powers. In particular, it should have power to commission research and studies from other organisations and have information-gathering abilities. The Government must show that this body will have the ability to live up to what they are claiming for it, and that is the purpose of my amendment.

Mr. John Bowis: In Committee, we enjoyed many examples of the thinking of the Opposition. On the whole, it was a great debate, featuring the hon. Members for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) versus their hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), about the rights and wrongs of shackling teacher unions and pay bargaining.
There followed what might be called a rough coming together of the Opposition, under the banner of the National Union of Teachers, in stout opposition to the other five teacher unions. I am delighted that, in the meantime, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West seems at least to have listened to the voices of some of the other teacher unions.
It is extraordinary that the Opposition have raised the issue today because, as the hon. Lady rightly said, not one member of the Opposition raised the matter in Committee—although she had the grace to say that I broached the subject. I did so because, like my hon. Friends, I had been listening to the teachers in the schools and to their union representatives. It became clear that the overwhelming majority of them supported the Bill and wanted to see it enacted.
Even so, they wanted one element of reassurance to underscore their support for the measure. That reassurance related to the independence, perceived and actual, of the secretariat. It was clear that that was necessary if they were fully to support the review body. They were right to raise the point, and that is why I raised it in Committee.
The most effective way to show independence of intent is to have independence of research in the secretariat that supports the review body. That is why it was important for us to consider the possibility of the Office of Manpower Economics being the body which would support the review body. In no way is that a criticism of the work of the Department of Education and Science or the interim advisory committee.
The Office of Manpower Economics has great experience of comparable pay review bodies, and that enables it to assess technical data, to obtain evidence, to give guidance and to fill the gaps in research as they appear. I gave in Committee an example linked to nurses which might relate to areas of teacher shortage, where such a body would possess the experience to fill in the gaps of such a review body.
5.45 pm
When responding to that debate in Committee, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary fairly said not just that the existing machinery for the interim advisory committee had worked well but that the Office of Manpower Economics had also worked well for those other bodies. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West was neither generous nor accurate in recalling my hon. Friend's reply on that occasion, when he promised to give further consideration to the suggestions that I had made.
I reiterate my request to the Government to look carefully at the need for the teaching profession to be reassured about the real independence of the body and to examine whether the sort of formula that can be provided by the OM E should be the way forward. I feel sure that the Minister has looked into the matter, and I hope that, in the light of my comments, he will respond favourably to my request.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the amendment and will answer the question that the Secretary of State put not to me but to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). He asked what she would do if the Government accepted the amendment. I—and my hon. Friends, who will be here when the Third Reading is put to the vote—would happily support the Government in that event. Indeed, the position that my hon. Friends and I take will depend on what the Minister says when replying to this debate.
I was not aware before entering the Chamber that the Secretary of State had just returned from Japan. It could turn out to have been a more dangerous journey for him than he thinks, if he has returned more like a tosa dog than when he went. Members concerned with education appear to be travelling far and wide these days. The only reason why I am taking part in the debate—as a recycled environmental educational stand-in, as it were—is that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is on his way home after attending his brother's wedding in America. And the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has recently travelled all the way to and from Westminster in search of education.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) put his case fairly and moderately. I gather that his main point was not a matter of controversy on Second Reading or in Committee, but it is now clearly an issue of concern. I hope that the Minister, who I have known well for a long time, will take on board the fact that the teachers' associations which support a pay review body believe that the argument for an independent body, independently serviced, is paramount for them in deciding whether they can support the Bill.
Opportunities to get everybody on board—or nearly everybody in this case since the NUT is excluded—are rare. The Minister has an opportunity in the coming half hour or so to get on board all the teachers' unions and associations—as I say, apart from the NUT—and to achieve the support of all hon. Members, apart from Labour Members. It is all his for the taking. So I encourage him to be generous, farsighted and statesmanlike and to do something to win the confidence of all those in, and the many who represent, the teaching profession.
May I add to the points made by the hon. Member for Battersea? First, the Minister knows—there were meetings I understand only this morning on this very issue—that the teachers' associations, including the National Association of Head Teachers, and the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, now say that they cannot support the Bill without an independence provision. Secondly, it appears that Ministers have equivocated on the matter because the original intention seems to have been to have a body on all fours with the other pay review bodies, which are well-respected because they are well serviced by the Office of Manpower Economics. Thirdly, if the members of a pay review body are all appointed by the Prime Minister—I accept that that is the position in the other pay review bodies—so that they are there by power of patronage, they must be seen to be doing their job independently. To do so, they must be able to draw on an independent, professional group of people to advise them, look elsewhere for statistics, and make comparable studies. It is important that that secretariat is independent of the DES and the Treasury. They must be seen to be giving credibility to the pay review body.
If the pay review body is not independent, it will give the impression that it is like the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions. It must therefore have a small, manageable back-up secretariat. The other pay review bodies and the professions that look to them for their pay have less of their workings dependent on the direction of the Secretary of State. All the other pay review bodies use the Office of Manpower Economics and there is no logical reason why teachers should not do so too.
The conclusion of the message that has been put to the Minister is that there will be an enormous opportunity for this issue to become relatively impartial and apolitical, as the pay of civil servants, doctors and nurses has now become, because an authoritative body speaks out. That will not be possible if the pay review bodies do not have the support mechanisms to do their job properly. Therefore, the Minister has it for the asking. It is important to the profession that he gives a generous response. I hope that, despite the impression given at the last meeting with representatives of the associations and unions concerned, the Government will agree that an independent secretariat, along the lines of the amendment, will be acceptable.

The Minister of State for Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): It is always a pleasure to join in the debate with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), even when he is standing in for the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). I hope that the hon. Member for Truro has had an enjoyable wedding, even if it was his brother's.
The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) was less than charitable to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) says that it is uncharacteristic, and I bow to his judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea was the only person to raise the issue during the debate. There was neither a cheep nor a chirp from the Labour party, who did not recognise the importance of the issue. The reason is obvious—Labour Members had been reading only the National Union of Teachers' brief and were worried only about their relationship with the hon. Members for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). We all miss the hon. Member for Hillsborough, as it is unusual for him to be absent during an education debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said, the debate in Committee took place—much to our enjoyment—between the Labour Front Bench and the Labour Back Bench. It was a question of how they could keep their members under control.
The hon. Member for Durham, North-West is, yet again, trying to scratch around to find excuses to oppose the Bill. That has been going on for the 19 or so hours in which we have been debating the Bill. The Opposition still do not know whether they oppose or support a pay review body.

Mr. Straw: We do know!

Mr. Eggar: I shall willingly give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he is still reluctant to make clear his position on the Bill. I fear that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may become somewhat restless if I do not turn my attention to amendment No. 9.
The pay review body must have an efficient, independent and knowledgeable secretariat. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), said in Committee, two broad options were available: the option that everyone has accepted worked well for the interim advisory committee—neither the unions nor the Opposition have impugned the independence of the secretariat that was provided by the IAC—and the option that operates for the other pay review bodies, where they rely on the OME. We have had to consider which of those two options was the most appropriate. In so doing, we paid attention to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea and noted the views of the professional associations, as put forward by hon. Members.
I am not sure who was meeting who this morning, but I assure the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that I met no one. However, the views of two of the associations have been made available to us and we have taken account of those. We have also had to take account of the fact that the secretariat needs the right kind of expertise to advise the chairman and members of the review body and carry out the work that the review body thinks appropriate. The chairman must be able to direct the work of the independent secretariat on behalf of the review body. However, there is no need for the chairman personally to employ the staff in the secretariat, as that would go beyond the strict requirements.
The Department of Education and Science will do all it can to ensure that the OME has access to the relevant knowledge and data within the Department. Some of the Department's information would not normally be available to the OME. My right hon. and learned Friend has decided that the review body's secretariat should follow the pattern of the other review bodies and the secretariat should be provided by the OME. Thus, the review body will receive the support and advice of the same kind and quality, including support on statistical and technical matters, from the same independent source as the other review bodies.
Obviously, the secretariat will be answerable to the review body and will work under the review body's direction, specifically under the direction of the chairman. The independence of the secretariat and of the review body will therefore be fully guaranteed.
6 pm
The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) sought an assurance in a throwaway line—my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea also raised this point—that the OME would be able to conduct independent research should it be required to by the review body. Hon. Members will be aware that the OME regularly conducts independent surveys of nursing vacancies, for example, and of the workload and responsibilities of hospital consultants, in its role of helping other review bodies. In addition to that work, the OME has also commissioned special surveys from consultants in the private sector when requested to do so by the review bodies. I am happy to confirm that the OME will be able to provide exactly the same service as it is felt appropriate by the teachers' review body. Furthermore, that body, through its secretariat at the OME, will

naturally have access to the relevant data collected by the DES, and it will receive every possible assistance from the DES in the work that it sets out to do.
For my part I could not have been clearer in what I have just said. I have accepted that the OME will provide the secretariat for the review body and I have done so as a result of consideration of the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. Now it is up to the Opposition to be clear in their turn. Will they support the Bill or not? Will they give the assurances that teachers want? Will they state categorically that they accept a pay review body for school teachers?

Ms. Armstrong: I understand that we are still dealing with amendment No. 9. This is an historic occasion. I do not believe that I have ever before moved an amendment which the Government have accepted in spirit even if they did not want to include it in the Bill. I therefore claim an important victory for the amendment—[Interruption.] This is, after all, our amendment. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: As no one else seems to want to speak yet, I will go first.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) explained on Second Reading, the Liberal Democrats support the idea of a pay review body as a much better alternative to the IAC. While I was education spokesman, of course, we argued for a return to negotiations. Now that we have had a clear answer to the question about the independence of the secretariat supporting the chairman of the pay review body, this proposal appears far better than the present IAC arrangement. The Secretary of State knows that, now that that matter has been clarified, this proposal is supported by all the professional associations, with the exception of the National Union of Teachers.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) will return before the end of Third Reading because he can confirm that his professional colleagues—for instance, at the school where he taught until earlier this year—overwhelmingly support the idea of a pay review body as a better offer—naturally, in the hope that there will be enough funding to meet the body's recommendations in full. Any professional body would naturally wish that the Government will automatically fund its review body's recommendations.
I, too, await with some interest the revelation of the position to be adopted by Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen. I missed out on the fun in Committee—

Mr. Eggar: It was not fun.

Mr. Hughes: In any event, I missed the developments in Committee—the quiet running battle between members of the Labour party. We wait to hear from them in a moment.
My party will vote with the Government on Third Reading. My offer to the Minister was unequivocal; this has been one of those occasions in which people can be persuaded to debate—

Mr. Eggar: We have not changed our minds.

Mr. Hughes: That is a bit unfair. Originally, the Government offered no guarantee of an independent


secretariat. Now they have said that they will guarantee one, so they have been persuaded to change and not to allow the DES to service the secretariat. I welcome that.
Teachers will be pleased by today's developments. I hope that they will be pleased with a pay review body that now has an independent secretariat. That is a far better arrangement than what we have at present, and the sooner teachers have their pay independently examined and the sooner they are given a pay structure that provides them with the status and objective evaluation of their needs that they require, the better. I hope that all three major parties in the House will endorse that.

Mr. James Pawsey: Like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I missed the fun in Committee, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were generous. He has unequivocally committed his party to the support of this Bill. I was also pleased to hear the tribute that he paid to the Minister of State. Unfortunately, the Labour party has not been able to bring itself to joining in with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. I thought that Opposition Members were very slow to respond to the repeated challenges from my right hon. and hon. Friends on the issue of whether they support the Bill. I certainly hope that they will make their position clear towards the end of this debate and that they will support the Government.
I welcome this Bill. It is markedly different from the original version presented to the House some months ago. Given the Prime Minister's commitment to education, this Bill is a major step forward—[Laughter.] The old jokes are often the best. The Bill will be widely welcomed not only by most of the teaching profession but by all those who are more generally associated with education, including parents and those in industry.
For a long time, teachers have been concerned about their status and about how they are viewed by society. Much of the responsibility for the decline in their position in society lies with them. Only recently, we saw one teachers' union at its annual conference urging industrial action in pursuit of a pay claim. Hon. Members on both sides of the House find that abhorrent. Doctors, lawyers and accountants do not take strike action in pursuit of pay claims, and calls for such action bring the teaching profession into disrepute—especially in the eyes of the parents whose children should be receiving education.
The Bill represents a genuine step forward, and I hope that it will come to be accepted by all the teaching unions, including—who knows?—by the NUT. There is of course a quid pro quo: in return for the introduction of the review body, the unions must undertake not to take strike action against their employers in pursuit of pay claims. But employers are only part of the equation, because when teachers strike they take action against the nations' children, and all hon. Members must deplore that.
For a long time, I have argued in the House that the majority of teachers are committed to their profession and to the children in their charge. The Bill gives teachers an opportunity to confirm that view and it is an important step in improving the esteem in which teachers are held. As some of my hon. Friends have said, teachers are not Government employees. Their pay is not directly financed by the Exchequer, and for that reason the review body

should be statutory and should cover conditions as well as pay. To use the words of a former Secretary of State for Education and Science, Sir Keith Joseph, teachers' pay must be good enough to enable the profession to recruit, retain and motivate teachers of good calibre.
Since 1979, there has been a real increase in teachers' pay of about 30 per cent. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that in his speech. There is considerable virtue in comparing the proposed review body for teachers with the review bodies for doctors and nurses in the national health service. Significantly, since the inception of their review body about six years ago, nurses have received a pay increase of some 63 per cent. In real terms, that is an increase over the rate of inflation of 22 per cent. If that precedent is anything to go by, teachers can look forward to a substantial improvement in their pay over the next few years. That increase in nurses' pay was not at the expense of jobs, because the number of nurses has considerably increased during the period of the review body. I hope that that answers the point of an Opposition Member, who said that there might be teacher redundancies.
One of the problems which has to be faced is the intransigence of some teacher unions. They and their apologists in the House have long argued that they should be absolutely entitled to take industrial action in pursuit of pay claims, notwithstanding the impact and effect of such action on the nation's children. I am optimistic that wiser counsels in the teacher unions will now prevail. I think that the review body will be widely welcomed by teachers, if not by all their trade unions, and in that I am delighted to have the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler).
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already said that the review body recommendations will be implemented unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. I have some difficulty in visualising such reasons. I am pleased to see that the Bill, like its predecessor, provides for schools to decide rates of pay according to their perceived needs, taking into account prevailing local conditions. Grant-maintained schools will be able to make their own arrangements, as was proposed in the original Bill. That will be widely welcomed, at least by Conservative Members.
I am pleased to see that clause 3 requires governors in grant-maintained schools to consult teachers before applying for exemption from the national pay and conditions system. That matter was discussed at some length in Committee when it considered the original Bill. I received representations on the issue, and was pleased to support them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pawsey: Given the hon. Gentleman's support for the Bill, I am tempted to call him my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hughes: That would be going too far.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the opt-out provision for grant-maintained schools. My colleagues and I are still unhappy about that, but we intend to vote for Third Reading.

Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted to hear the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remark. I shall not seek to press the point lest I open a divide between myself and the hon. Gentleman.
Clause 5 empowers the Secretary of State to make an order defining payments or benefits that are to be regarded as remuneration, and what is, or is not, part of a teacher's professional duties. The clause also enables the Secretary of State to decide the conditions of employment that should be regarded as statutory.
At present, non-statutory conditions of employment are set out in what is known as the Burgundy Book under
Conditions of service for school teachers in England and Wales.
That book is produced by all the education trade unions, with one marked exception, the Professional Association of Teachers. That is an unfortunate and, I believe, unintentional omission, and I urge Ministers to ensure that all nationally recognised teacher trade unions are party to the negotiations on non-statutory conditions of service. Plainly, it is unfair that one specific union should be excluded. The Professional Association of Teachers brings considerable restraint to the negotiating table, and that should be actively encouraged. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for their support on that point.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Powerful support.

Mr. Pawsey: I acknowledge that point by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).
I was pleased to see that His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales said in his speech on education:
The announcement on a new pay review body for teachers could go a long way to encouraging more first rate people to choose teaching as a career.
He is, of course, right and I was delighted to hear his cheerful support. It is the first time that I have been able to quote His Royal Highness in an education debate, and perhaps in future he will take even more interest in education. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
I have never been able to understand the argument that pay negotiations are good only if they are sanctified by a trade union agreement. Negotiations by teachers for teachers at individual schools must have value at least equal to that of a trade union. Once that idea and the concept of greater individual freedom are accepted by teachers they will find it extremely beneficial. Teachers in grant-maintained schools will be able directly to negotiate with their employers, and substantial benefits will flow from that.
Almost by definition, teachers are a particularly articulate group, and should have confidence in their ability to negotiate pay and conditions without recourse to the machinery of a trade union. Teachers need the crutch of a trade union less than most, and that point is further underlined when one remembers that much of the decline in teachers' status has occurred over the past 11 years, when their unions were at their most militant. I suspect that teachers would have been better served by their unions if they had been less inclined to act like a militant shop floor.
There is a persuasive argument that the teaching profession should act more like other professions, such as lawyers, doctors and accountants. Significantly, those professions do very well without the benefit of a central negotiating body. They are well able to negotiate their pay

and conditions with individual employers and companies. Their status, their pay and their conditions do not suffer as a result of individuals negotiating individual arrangements.
I support the Bill, and I hope that it will enjoy the full-hearted support of us all, including the official Opposition.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The speech of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) was the greatest load of claptrap to which I have had to listen during my time here, which is almost four years. I never heard so much rubbish.
Never could a Bill have emerged from consideration in Committee with so few changes. The Government refused to offer any concessions in Committee, although Opposition Members worked hard to try to get them to do so. It is not surprising that the Government adopted that approach. Indeed, we expected nothing else. The concession by the Government this afternoon will have not one iota of practical effect. The majority of the amendments before us today were irrelevant in any event.
The fact is that teachers have lost their right to negotiate with their employers. As many hon. Members have said, the teachers' rights will not be restored to them, at least under this Government. They have lost their fundamental right for their unions to be able to negotiate their pay and conditions.

Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Steinberg: No. The hon. Gentleman had long enough to express his views. I am not giving way.

Mr. Pawsey: Give way.

Mr. Steinberg: I shall not give way. Sit down.
Teachers lost some of their rights when the interim advisory committee was introduced in 1987, and they will continue to lose them. In effect, teachers' negotiating rights came to an end in 1987. I cannot perceive any difference between the IAC and the pay review body that we shall have to accept this evening.

Sir Norman Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the concept of a pay review body, why does he think that doctors, nurses and consultants support their review bodies and would be horrified if it were proposed that they should lose them?

Mr. Steinberg: First, the review bodies that were set up for the doctors, nurses and others were established after consultation with representative organisations. The teachers were not consulted about a review body. Secondly, the review bodies that have been established for doctors and nurses do not determine conditions of employment. The teachers' review body will determine pay and conditions of service, and that is unacceptable.
On Second Reading, I asked the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), the Liberal Democrats' education spokesman, to explain the difference between the IAC and the pay review body. The hon. Gentleman said that he would explain it in Committee. I put the same question to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, and he said that he had already answered it. It was hardly a conclusive answer, and certainly not an answer that I could readily accept.
In fact, there is no difference between the IAC and the pay review body. Indeed, I would be prepared to argue that the proposed review body will probably be worse than the IAC, because it will not be independent.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have checked the Official Report to see what was said on Second Reading, but I have not had time to check whether my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) gave a full answer to the hon. Gentleman's question in Committee. I suggest that there may not be that much difference between the two bodies in practice. It may be that one difference will be the existence of an independent secretariat. The majority of teachers are in favour of the review body, because in general they had a good experience under the IAC.

Mr. Steinberg: That is a matter of opinion. Statistics show that, in 1974, the average pay of teachers was 136 per cent. of non-manual earnings. After the IAC had come to an end, or even during its reign to 1990, the average salary of a teacher was 104 per cent. of non-manual earnings. Teachers did not do very well out of the IAC.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Steinberg: I shall not give way. I must continue. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to choose the chairman and members of the review body. He can decide what it should discuss. He will be able to amend its recommendations or ignore them and implement what he wants in his own way. When he was interviewed on a radio programme this morning, he denied that and said that he will not have such powers. The Bill's provisions make it clear that he wil have the powers that I have described. The Secretary of State is either misleading the House or he is being economical with the truth.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Mr. Steinberg: Just one moment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had a fair say this afternoon; he should let me have my say.
Clause 1(1) states:
The Prime Minister shall appoint a body
and adds that matters
may from time to time be referred to the review body by the Secretary of State.
Can anyone other than the Secretary of State submit anything to the review body? Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to answer my question. In Committee, the hon. Member for Truro tabled an amendment that provided, in effect, that it should be the duty of the review body to have regard to any views expressed to it by any organisation representing teachers on matters bearing on the professional status of teachers. The Government rejected it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said on the wireless this morning that anybody could make submissions to the review body, but it was not true.
The Secretary of State told us this morning that he would not be able to overrule the pay review body. However, clause 2(1) states that the Secretary of State may make provision
by order giving effect to the recommendations of the review body, with or without modification, or making such other provision with respect to the matters referred to the review body as he thinks fit.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that he will not be able to overrule the pay review body, but the Bill makes it clear that he will be able to do that and will be in a position to implement anything that he thinks fit.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Mr. Steinberg: I shall give way when I have mentioned a third discrepancy.
Clause 2(5) tells us:
the Secretary of State may make a pay and conditions order by virtue of this sub-section if—
(b) it appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient to make the provision in question.
The Secretary of State will be able to do whatever he likes. He will be able to ignore the review body and implement his proposals as he thinks fits. Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain to us why he said during an interview broadcast on the radio this morning that he would not be able to overrule the review body, when the Bill states clearly in three different places that he will be able to take such action.

Mr. Clarke: The Bill makes it clear that the pay review body is under a statutory duty to consider matters referred to it by the Secretary of State, but it will be able to consider anything else that is put to it by any other body, including the National Union of Teachers, for which the hon. Gentleman speaks. The Bill makes it clear that, if the Secretary of State wishes to make a substantial modification to the review body's recommendations, he can do so only by obtaining Parliament's consent so to act. All these matters were considered in Committee. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied, but the reality is far removed from the NUT's advertisement. The hon. Gentleman has been a clear, passionate and consistent opponent of the idea of the review body, but will he vote against Third Reading?

Mr. Steinberg: I am not satisfied with that answer. Frankly, the Secretary of State has been economical with the truth. Furthermore, I am not speaking on behalf of the National Union of Teachers. I have no connection with the NUT other than that I am a member. I am not a consultant for the NUT. I am a member of another union as well, and I am entitled to speak my opinion; the NUT does not rule me. I have some principles; perhaps the Secretary of State does not. I speak from the heart arid nowhere else.

Mr. Eggar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Steinberg: No.

Mr. Pawsey: How will the hon. Gentleman vote?

Mr. Steinberg: I shall vote against the Bill.
In his answer to me, the Secretary of State virtually told us to trust him and trust his actions. Would hon. Members and people throughout the country trust the present Secretary of State for Education and Science? My answer would be no. Those in the health service did not trust him, the teachers do not trust him, and I certainly do not.
When we debated the Education Reform Act 1988, we were told to trust the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he now?"] One may well ask. He is probably out with the dogs or in his kennel or just being got at by a rottweiler. We were told to trust the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, who


said that the character of schools that opted out would not be changed within five years. Then the present Secretary of State comes along, and that is forgotten. I do not trust him, and many others will not.
The Secretary of State originally said that he would give the teachers a pay review body only if they gave up their right to take industrial action, but that never appeared in the Bill. The impression he gave was that teachers were militant and were constantly on strike and causing disruption. But if we look carefully at the statistics during the past 20 years—from 1971 to 1991—we see that 1 million days have been lost in the teaching profession through industrial action. Who were the Government in power while all those days were lost? We all know that the Conservative Government were in power—it is they who have antagonised the teaching profession from 1971 and who continue to do so.
It is the democratic right of all people to withdraw their labour, but the pay review body prevents that. The Secretary of State has not made it clear what he will do if teachers take industrial action. Will he abandon the pay review body or use powers to dictate a settlement? He will do the latter. It seems clear that the teachers' unions are not all that much in favour of the pay review body. The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers said in its recent document:
The pay review body proposed is far from perfect on the question of composition. It will be appointed by the Prime Minister, although the Association would prefer to have some say on the nominations. Our preference would be for an independent chair with representation split evenly between government on one side and unions on the other.
If that is not a negotiating body, I do not know what is. The NASUWT does not like the pay review body, but wants negotiations like everybody else.
The Bill is an abomination. It takes away the rights of teachers to negotiate pay, and I shall vote against it on Third Reading.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I think that someone in the House should tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that he is much trusted in education. We in the profession appreciate the stand that he has taken to achieve this legislation, which will profit teachers as they have not been helped for many years.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said, almost with pride, that 1 million days were lost through teacher strikes, but that is to the shame of teachers, not their credit—[Interruption.] I am choking after listening to the hon. Member for City of Durham for so long; I have now regained my voice.
Anyone who has been in the profession as long as I have—23 years—would be amazed to hear that the five unions—the Secondary Heads Association, the Professional Association of Teachers, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, the National Association of Schoolmaster/Union of Women Teachers and the National Association of Head Teachers—speak with one voice. What is remarkable is that they do so in welcoming the legislation.
We are not surprised, but sorry, that the National Union of Teachers has not come on side—and I believe that it will rue the day. Members of the NUT up and down

the country will welcome the legislation when they see the pay review body in action and begin to profit from it, as they will. I think that they will press the NUT to change its view and it will have to do so—[Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for the glass of water he is offering me and for the light relief that it is providing to the House.
I welcome the pay review body as a suitable replacement for the IAC and particularly as a long-term replacement for the Burnham committee. Having been a member of the profession when it came entirely under the auspices of the Burnham committee, I know, as do other hon. Members, that something new and different was needed to replace it. Under that body, eight of the last 12 efforts to produce agreements ended in strikes and difficulties right across the country. The value of the new organisation that we are to have is that it will provide a suitable mechanism for a time of great change in education at all levels, particularly in schools.
I remember taking part militantly in a battle for higher pay when Lord Eccles was Secretary of State for Education and Science. We called our action "More shekels, less Eccles". We should remember that the Labour party so often speaks with two voices on education; I should like to hear what it thinks about the pay review body and whether it supports it.
I remember standing with a group of teachers when Barbara Castle was Secretary of State for Employment and Anthony Crosland was Secretary of State for Education and Science in 1969. The teachers were striking and Barbara Castle said to the group, "Good luck to you all, I hope you win." She then went back to the Cabinet and voted against rises for teachers. That is the sort of thing I mean—I do not say that unkindly, but factually: the Labour party too often speaks on education with a forked tongue, and teachers do not forget that.
I hope that, as a result of the Bill, there will be a no-strike deal. That would be good for education, teachers and children.

Ms. Armstrong: That is not in the Bill.

Mr. Greenway: I did not say that it was in the Bill. If the hon. Lady listened, she would hear what I say. I said that, as a result of the Bill, I hope that we shall see a no-strike deal, because that would benefit everyone involved in the well-being of our children.
The pay review body will facilitate suitable differentials, and more of them, within the profession. More thought needs to be given to that; that will be one of the early tasks of the body when it is established.
I particularly hope that teachers with heavy responsibilities will get the differentials they should have to reward them for the work they do. But even more than that, I hope that good teachers will get increased differentials and that they will not be lured from teaching full time at the chalk face and into administrative jobs and so on. One of the absurdities of the teaching profession is that, the better one is at it, the less teaching one does, because good teachers are promoted to administrative jobs. I believe that the Bill will overcome that.
It is particularly important to say that we need to pay and retain good teachers in secondary schools, and particularly in primary schools. Primary schools are not


receiving all the encouragement they should in the form of differentials, and I hope that the new body will bring them more.
No one should imagine that the pay review body will be a means of depressing teachers' pay. I believe that teachers' pay will rise substantially. We as a society need to accept that, face it, know that it will happen and encourage it to happen.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) referred to the relative position of teachers' pay in the mid-1970s and the IAC days. In the pre-IAC days of the early 1980s, teachers' pay had dropped even lower than that. Many members of my association and many teachers generally were very unhappy pre-IAC—not that they were over-enamoured of the IAC.

Mr. Steinberg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carr: No. I shall keep my remarks brief.
The Burnham committee was a monumental disaster in its latter days. It did not result in any reasonable settlements and was part of the reason for the industrial action. It was not the only reason; the major reason for the industrial action was the fact that the Government refused to pay teachers properly. However, I leave that aside.
We have some reservations about the powers remaining with the Secretary of State in relation to the pay review body. We would have preferred to see fewer powers of direction. Nevertheless, I am happy to join my colleagues in support of the Bill.

Mr. Fatchett: Colleague.

Mr. Carr: There will be more.
I am happy to support the Bill, since the majority of teachers support the introduction of a pay review body. We have reservations about the terms of the pay review body, and we hope that our reservations will be noted, but in general the majority of teachers and Liberal Democrats support the introduction of the pay review body.

Mr. Straw: Conservative Members have demanded an explanation of the Labour party's position on review bodies. 1 am constantly surprised by that phoney demand because our position on the principle of review bodies is clear. We are in favour of review bodies where they are agreed by the parties concerned and operate in an independent way.
I am also surprised that the Secretary of State's advisers have not briefed him on what I said in the House a year ago today when I was asked by the then Secretary of State what the Labour party would have done. I replied:
We would have ensured that there were negotiations between teachers and employers . . . to have allowed free negotiations between teachers and their employers, or had a review body".—[Official Report, 6 June 1990; Vol. 173, c. 740.]
We have supported review bodies for the doctors, dentists, nurses and many other groups.
I hope that the Secretary of State, leaving aside the insults to which he usually resorts when he has a weak case, does not try to tax the credibility of the House with a claim that he has been completely consistent on the issue of review bodies and that they are some litmus test of support either for the education service or for the running

of a public service. If he does he will have some rather difficult questions to answer, one of which is why he refused a proposal from the unions and the Labour party for a review body for the ambulance personnel—

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No, I did not.

Mr. Straw: Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did—I have the cuttings here—perpetrating havoc in the ambulance service.
The other question is why the right hon. and learned Gentleman turned down the idea of a review body in the House on 27 November 1990 during the debate on the first School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he would commit himself to a review of teachers' pay because the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who was a candidate for the Conservative leadership, was going round the House saying that there would be a review of teachers' pay if he was elected.
This very Secretary of State sat here, who now says that he has always believed in a review body for teachers since he was at school and has never departed from that belief, who is now claiming that as the most consistent principle in the whole of his political existence, and who, when asked by my hon. Friend about the review body, said:
However, I do not believe that we shall embark on a fresh review of pay arrangements when the Bill"—
the first Bill, which he now opposes—
contains excellent arrangements that should be enacted and put into force."—[Official Report, 27 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 751.]
He then went on to recommend that Bill.
The job of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is always to read out whatever brief is put in front of him, and he does it elegantly. I understand that that is his job, and I hope that he will get preferment for it. He can live in hope and expectation. I think that he is a good man. But he has tonight made a speech in support of the No. 2 Bill when only six months ago he was making a speech against it in support of the first Bill. He said:
I welcome the Bill, because I believe that, over time, it will help to raise teacher morale.
One of the things that the hon. Gentleman commended about the previous Bill was that there had been substantial consultations—which is not the case on this Bill—between the Government and teacher unions, as well as employers and local education authorities. On and on he went, and at the end he said:
This measure is one way in which we can show our support for teachers and direct more money towards them." —[Official Report, 27 November 1990; Vol. 1981, c. 781–4.]
The Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman have experienced an interesting conversion.

Sir Norman Fowler: Does that mean that we are all agreed on the ssue—that the Labour party are in favour of the pay review body and that if, God forbid, there were a Labour Government, they would not go back on the review body?

Mr. Straw: I am coming to that. I am certainly in favour of review bodies. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is here, because he experienced a personal conversion when he chaired the private Conservative seminar in January on the future of Conservative education policy. I have been sent a copy of the report, which says:


There is a crisis of confidence amongst teachers of such growing magnitude that it now threatens the entire spectrum of the Government's educational reforms.
I am not surprised that, for the first time since he gave up Cabinet office, the right hon. Gentleman has come to our debates, no doubt to learn from the Labour party's policy how it would deal with that crisis of confidence.

Sir Norman Fowler: What is the answer to my question?

Mr. Straw: The answer to the question is this. On Second Reading we put down a reasoned amendment. By the way, the Liberal Democrats voted in favour of it. That reasoned amendment, apart from objecting to the way in which the Secretary of State had treated the House and members of the Standing Committee by suspending the previous Bill without explanation, spelled out our three conditions for supporting the review body.
We said that we declined to give a Second Reading to the Bill, first, because it contained no proposals to raise teachers' professionalism by the establishment of a general teachers council; secondly, because the policies of the Government had led to a serious decline in the morale, motivation, recruitment and retention of teachers and in their relative pay; and thirdly, because it gave unacceptable powers to the Secretary of State to issue directions to the pay review body. Those were the tests.
I am grateful for what the Minister said about an independent secretariat under the Office of Manpower Economics. There is no cavilling about that; we are grateful to him. However, the conditions that we set out on Second Reading have not been satisfied. I spoke at length on Second Reading about the issue of powers.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will Labour vote against the Bill?

Mr. Straw: We shall vote against the Bill. It is the Opposition's job to scrutinise legislation. It is not enough for Ministers to say, "Trust us." As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said, why on earth should we trust the Government when they have broken their word time and again? They have told us, "There is no reason to accept the amendment; you need only trust us." That is what they said about the five-year period before grant-maintained schools could change their character. When they abolished housing benefit, they said "Trust us, there is a vocation hardship allowance," but they have now abolished it.
The Bill, unlike the arrangements for any other review body, gives the Secretary of State the power to issue directions to the review body in advance. It is an unqualified power, and there is no reason for it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have joined him many times in criticising Government policy. He has heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) say that we are unhappy about the powers. He rightly said that we voted for the Labour party's reasoned amendment, but the problem is that this is our last chance to vote on the Bill. The issue, surely, is whether the proposals on offer—with all the disadvantages that we have mentioned—are better or worse than the present system. I find it difficult to believe that the Labour

party does not think that they are an improvement, and therefore feels that it must vote against the Bill. I do not understand.

Mr. Straw: It is a most extraordinary proposition for a member of the Opposition to advance, that we should give the Government the legislation. I expect that the hon. Gentleman will vote for the council tax, because it can be argued that it is marginally better than the poll tax. If the hon. Gentleman reads the reasoned amendment, for which he voted only a few weeks ago, and the Bill, which has been unamended on the principal provisions to which we objected, I should be surprised if he joins the Government in the Lobby.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Every now and again, the hon. Gentleman gets near to his case. For the first time, he has revealed that he will vote against the Bill. Therefore, he is voting against a review body. He is trying to throw it out, either to return to the interim advisory committee or, more likely, to Burnham. The only reason he can give for that is one line in clause 1(4), which says:
The Secretary of State may give directions to the review body as to considerations to which they are to have regard.
Is that the reason? Does the hon. Gentleman expect us to believe that, on that basis, the Labour party is flatly against a review body for teachers?

Mr. Straw: Yes. Clause 1 is the operative clause of the Bill. It gives the Secretary of State unprecedented powers to give directions to the review body, but Ministers have no such powers to give directions to other review bodies. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now say that he accepts our arguments, we will not vote against the Bill.
We are discussing the machinery for settling pay. Anybody would think that we were discussing the record of a Government who had been beneficence itself and had paid teachers properly. Despite the Secretary of State's flim-flam, since 1987 teachers have had no pay increase; their pay, relative to other groups, has declined. In this pre-election year, the Secretary of State may be trying to screw from his colleagues in the Treasury some real-terms increases for this year, but were the Government re-elected, which they will not be, they could not increase investment in education because of their prior commitment to cut taxation to 20p in the pound. I am sure that the Secretary of State will not say that that is being abandoned.
We want agreed machinery for the settlement of teachers' pay and a Government who are committed to paying teachers properly. We have neither from the Government, and we will vote against the Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: At quite an early stage of our 19 hours of debate on the Bill, I accused the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) of using weasel words on the principle. Any self-respecting weasel would blush with shame at the policy that has been advanced by the hon. Gentleman.
Most of this evening's debate has been conducted in an atmosphere of considerable hilarity, despite this being an extremely serious subject. At times, we have resembled a good-natured school debating society rather than the usual atmosphere of the House. The reason is not only the bonhomie of the participants in the debate—there is a good-natured selection from the three parties—but


because the position of the official Opposition is farcical. I have never heard a sillier attitude to a Bill that is popular with the profession at which it is directed.
We have had 19 hours of debate, at the end of which the denouement is that the official Opposition will vote against the review body. In the last year before an election, that means that, if they were elected, they would get rid of the review body. They would use some other method of negotiating teachers' pay that ensured the right to strike, on which the hon. Member for Blackburn laid so much emphasis when we first debated the Bill. It is all of a piece with their commitment to industrial action, which they have demonstrated when teachers have taken it in the past.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Secretary of State want to take it away?

Mr. Clarke: Certainly.

Mr. Cryer: By law?

Mr. Clarke: Not by law. No law takes the right to strike from nurses or doctors. No law will take away from teachers the right to strike. Those professions, which have a review body, are stopped from taking industrial action by their commitment to their pupils, to their patients, to the general public and to the services on which they lay such value.
At times, Labour Members have behaved like delegates in the halls and corridors of the NUT conference at Easter, and have passionately defended the right to strike. In the past, they have shown their enthusiasm for industrial action in schools. It is not farcical but deeply tragic that the Labour party still espouses such views on a great public service like the education service because it cannot think of a reason for taking that view that they dare state clearly in public.
We have had 19 hours of debate, but most of the speeches of Labour Members were on aspects of education that had nothing to do with the settlement of pay. They said anything they could think of to keep the debate going while they sustained that attitude. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) has been wholly consistent. The same can be said of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). On this issue at least, they are on the left of their party, and are wholly committed to the idea of industrial action in the state education service, when necessary.
The members of the Opposition Front Bench cannot think of any sensible reasons for opposing the Bill. The nearest we got to hearing one was when the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) moved an amendment emphasising how critical it was that the review body should have an independent secretariat, as all the others have. She made the case for the Office of Manpower Economics, and cited the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, the National Association of Head Teachers, and two other unions, who had begun to express reservations about the review body that they had first supported, when they thought that the Office of Manpower Economics might not be providing the secretariat.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in a perfectly straightforward speech, said that that aspect was important and that they might go with the NAHT if we did not satisfy them on that point. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who took the Bill

through Committee with great skill and industry, explained that there would be a secretariat like that of the OME.
It is interesting that that point, which determined whether the Liberals would vote for the Bill on Third Reading, and which was critical to the attitude taken by Labour, was not raised by either party until this stage in our 19 hours of debate. Neither of them had thought about it before. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) who in Committee urged that the OME should serve as the secretariat—and who received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary an undertaking that it would.
The only reason that Labour has for opposing the Bill is that which the hon. Member for Blackburn came very near to admitting. It is that the National Union of Teachers is dictating to the Labour party what its position should be. Anyone who reads the NUT's full-page advertisements in the morning newspapers and compares them with the Government's policies and the contents of the Bill knows that the NUT cannot think of any reasons in reality for opposing the Bill. The NUT's stated reasons are based on a totally inaccurate representation of the proposition that we have put forward.
The NUT is driven forward by its constitution, which enables some extremely left-wing teachers to attend meetings at seaside towns, at which they impose on their union a ridiculous policy that is contrary to the opinions of most of the NUT's members—and which says that the union is against a pay review body and in favour of militant industrial action and the use of industrial muscle in the classroom instead.
The nearest that the hon. Member for Blackburn came to admitting the real reason for his opposition was when he said that Labour's views on review bodies are clear—that it is in favour of them, when they are agreed to by the parties concerned. The NUT does not agree to a review body. The Labour party cannot agree to a review body. The Labour party is about to vote against a review body and commit itself to a policy on the state education service that is dictated by a wholly militant and unrepresentative minority.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr), who is himself a former teacher, rightly said that the majority of teachers welcome the establishment of an independent review body, and look forward to having their pay determined in the way that doctors and the clinical professions have enjoyed for many years.
The Government have brought forward the review body because we believe that not only the teachers but the public support the idea of giving that professional status to teachers. If one has any commitment to education, it makes obvious common sense that there ought never to be industrial action in the classroom. It does mean asking teachers to make the sacrifice of giving up the possibility of taking industrial action, and therefore it is right that the Government should offer to submit themselves to the independent advisory review body, which will enable us to make proper provision for teachers in future—perhaps of the generous kind anticipated by my hon. Friend the Minister of State—without the risk of industrial action returning to the classroom.
I described Labour's position as farcical. It is positively damaging. It reveals that the allegedly new-style Labour party, with all the advice that its leaders have taken from their image-makers as to their clothes, costumes and


presentation, is bereft of independent action when it comes to a serious conflict of opinion with one of the more militant trade unions in the public service, the National Union of Teachers.
If Labour ever returned to government, presumably it would—as its vote tonight suggests—repeal the review body. If it were returned to government, who would ever believe that it would face up to one of the white-collar professional trade unions whenever it was confronted by a challenge over any significant issue? Who believes that Labour would have the courage to resist industrial action, and would not deal with any crisis in a damaging way?
Farcical is how I have described Labour's attitude. Disgraceful is what I could call it. I invite Labour to go ahead with its vote. I has taken Labour Members 19 hours to reach the stage at which they should creep with shame to the Lobby that they intend to enter, where they will show their true colours by voting against one of the most welcome and important Bills that the education service has seen in a generation.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 172.

Division No. 159]
[7.05 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Carr, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Carrington, Matthew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carttiss, Michael


Amos, Alan
Cash, William


Arbuthnot, James
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Chope, Christopher


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Conway, Derek


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Simon(Swindon)


Beggs, Roy
Cope, Rt Hon John


Beith, A. J.
Cormack, Patrick


Bellingham, Henry
Couchman, James


Bellotti, David
Cran, James


Bendall, Vivian
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Curry, David


Benyon, W.
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Devlin, Tim


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dicks, Terry


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dykes, Hugh


Bowis, John
Eggar, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Emery, Sir Peter


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evennett, David


Brazier, Julian
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bright, Graham
Fallon, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Favell, Tony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fearn, Ronald


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Buck, Sir Antony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Budgen, Nicholas
Fookes, Dame Janet


Burns, Simon
Forman, Nigel


Butler, Chris
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butterfill, John
Forth, Eric


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Franks, Cecil





Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fry, Peter
Madel, David


Gale, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Gardiner, Sir George
Mans, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maples, John


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gorst, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Miller, Sir Hal


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Miscampbell, Norman


Gregory, Conal
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Grist, Ian
Monro, Sir Hector


Ground, Patrick
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Michael
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hague, William
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Haselhurst, Alan
Norris, Steve


Hawkins, Christopher
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayward, Robert
Page, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Paice, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hill, James
Pawsey, James


Hind, Kenneth
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Holt, Richard
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Price, Sir David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Redwood, John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Irvine, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jack, Michael
Rost, Peter


Jackson, Robert
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Janman, Tim
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kennedy, Charles
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Speller, Tony


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lawrence, Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stern, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stevens, Lewis


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sumberg, David


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Summerson, Hugo


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Tapsell, Sir Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maclean, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman






Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wheeler, Sir John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Whitney, Ray


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tracey, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Tredinnick, David
Wilkinson, John


Trippier, David
Wilshire, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Wood, Timothy


Walden, George
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Yeo, Tim


Wallace, James



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walters, Sir Dennis
Mr. David Lightbown and


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Watts, John



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald
Darling, Alistair


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dixon, Don


Barron, Kevin
Dobson, Frank


Battle, John
Doran, Frank


Beckett, Margaret
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bell, Stuart
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Eadie, Alexander


Blair, Tony
Eastham, Ken


Blunkett, David
Edwards, Huw


Boateng, Paul
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bradley, Keith
Fisher, Mark


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, John


Callaghan, Jim
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Galloway, George


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clelland, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cohen, Harry
Gordon, Mildred


Corbyn, Jeremy
Graham, Thomas


Cousins, Jim
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cox, Tom
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Crowther, Stan
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cryer, Bob
Grocott, Bruce


Cummings, John
Hain, Peter





Harman, Ms Harriet
Patchett, Terry


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pendry, Tom


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Pike, Peter L.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hinchliffe, David
Prescott, John


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Radice, Giles


Hood, Jimmy
Randall, Stuart


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Redmond, Martin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hoyle, Doug
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Robertson, George


Illsley, Eric
Robinson, Geoffrey


Ingram, Adam
Rogers, Allan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, Jeff


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Rooney, Terence


Lamond, James
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, Ted


Leighton, Ron
Ruddock, Joan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sedgemore, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Loyden, Eddie
Short, Clare


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Soley, Clive


McLeish, Henry
Spearing, Nigel


McMaster, Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


McNamara, Kevin
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Strang, Gavin


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Straw, Jack


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Turner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Vaz, Keith


Meacher, Michael
Walley, Joan


Meale, Alan
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wilson, Brian


Morgan, Rhodri
Winnick, David


Morley, Elliot
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Worthington, Tony


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wray, Jimmy


Mullin, Chris
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Murphy, Paul



Nellist, Dave
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Hara, Edward
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Prisoners of War (Compensation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Sir Bernard Braine: On 21 July 1988, I drew the attention of the House to an early-day motion which had attracted a large number of signatures. It stated:
That this House, in welcoming the growing friendship between Japan and the United Kingdom, believes that this friendship will not fully blossom until the wrongs done during the Second World War to Allied prisoners are fully accepted by the Japanese Government and due reparation made.
The response of the Minister of State was strangely ambivalent. He conceded that a debt of gratitude was owed to all who had fought and suffered in world war 2, but a Labour Government had signed the 1951 treaty with Japan and their Conservative successor had ratified it. That treaty, said the Minister, was binding on us all, and was a full and final settlement. It was nothing of the kind. British service men who survived Japanese cruelty and neglect—I emphasise the word "survived"—received the pitiful sum of £76·50, and civilian internees received £48·50 from the proceeds of Japanese assets seized here at the outbreak of war. That was all. Worse than that, the treaty ignored all the established international conventions governing the laws of war and the treatment of prisoners.
Ironically, although I have never heard anybody say it, the treaty spat in the face of the third Geneva convention of 1949 to which we had put our signature two years earlier. The House may like to know what that convention stated. Article 129 provided that persons who committed "grave breaches" should be brought to account. Article 130 defined grave breaches as
wilful killing, torture and inhumane treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing grave suffering and serious injury to body or health.
Moreover, Parliament and the nation were not ignorant of what had happened to our service men and civilians who had had the misfortune to fall into Japanese hands. On 28 January 1944 the House had listened in silent horror —as one of our great national newspapers said at the time —to a statement by the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Anthony Eden. Speaking in a low voice, as the newspaper described it—one can imagine the atmosphere in the House because we were still at war with Germany and with Japan—he said:
I fear I have grave news to give to the House."—[Official Report, 28 January 1944; Vol. 396, c. 1029.]
He then gave details of the appalling ill treatment of thousands of British and Commonwealth prisoners.
I had the good fortune, one might say, of serving on the personal staff of Admiral Lord Mountbatten, supreme allied commander in south-east Asia. I went straight there after the general election in 1945 and I saw for myself the condition of some of the pitiful survivors of Japanese cruelty then coming out of prison camps. It was a moving experience, although by that time we all knew what to expect as the war came to an end.
I will set out the stark facts. In 1946 Parliament was told in Command Paper 6832 that of the total number of British prisoners of war who fell into enemy hands in Europe and in the middle east, 5·5 per cent. died in capitivity. That was not an excessively large figure because it must have included many who, when captured, were already grieviously wounded. Of those who fell into

German hands, 5·5 per cent. died in capitivity, but the proportion who died at the hands of the Japanese in a shorter period was four to five times greater.
Mr. Eden said in his statement that the Japanese
had violated not only the principles of International Law but all canons of decent and civilised conduct.
He continued:
Let the Japanese Government reflect that in time to come the record of their military authorities in this war will not be forgotten."—[Official Report, 28 January 1944; Vol. 396, c. 1032–3.]
I wish to remind hon. Members, many of whom were not even born at that time, that that record should never be forgotten. Down the ages, civilised nations—but not the war-time Japanese—have waged war under rules governing the treatment of prisoners, the sick and the wounded. One of our greatest commanders, Field Marshal Slim, who led the 14th army down through Burma to Rangoon driving the Japanese before him, recorded much later what his troops found in the final stages. The prisoner-of-war camps that they uncovered were
little more than barbed wire enclosures in which wild beasts might have been herded together.
He described the Japanese gaolers
almost without exception as being callously indifferent to suffering, or at the worst, bestially sadistic. The food was of a quality and a quantity barely enough to keep men alive, let alone fit them for the hard labour that most were driven to perform. It was horrifying to see them moving slowly about these sordid camps, all emaciated, many walking skeletons, numbers covered with suppurating sores and most naked apart from the ragged shorts they had worn for years or loin cloths of sacking. The most heart moving of all were those who lay on wretched pallets, their strength ebbing faster than relief could be brought to them.
Such deliberate cruelty and utter indifference to suffering had been characteristic of the Japanese from the start of hostilities. As so many hon. Members were children or not even born at that time, it is necessary to spell that out. I cite the case of my friend Bill Holtham, who lives not very far away from me in Essex. He was wounded in the last stages of the fighting in Singapore and was taken into the Alexander hospital which, as the Japanese advanced, was soon in no man's land. As the Japanese closed in, they stormed the hospital, killing the doctors and hospital staff and savagely bayoneting the sick in their beds. Holtham was one of the very few eye witnesses of their barbarity. He managed to escape—but not for long. He was re-captured and sent to labour on the infamous Siam-Burma railway, where our men were to die like flies.
I cite the case of the 1,080 British prisoners shipped out on the Singapore Maru for slave labour in Japanese-occupied territory; 23 desperately ill men were taken off before the ship sailed, 63 died on the voyage and their bodies were thrown overboard, 280 sick men were left aboard the vessel at the port of arrival, six weeks later, 127 of them were dead.
Try, if you can, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to imagine the sadistic games that the Japanese guards played in the camps—for example, binding a man with barbed wire, forcing water down his throat through a hosepipe and then jumping on him in sheer delight, or tying men to trees in full sight of their comrades, without food or water in the burning heat by day and the bitter cold by night, screaming in agony at first and then, as their lives drained away on the second or third day, falling silent.
Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, imagine any greater depravity than what happened at a camp for British slave


labourers at Saigon docks? On three Saturday evenings in succession, leading Japanese dignitaries in the area and their womenfolk were invited to a drinks party in the camp compound. Tables were set out, food was laid, and the saki flowed. Guards then dragged out a prisoner chosen at random. There was no warning—the guards seized a prisoner, dragged him out, bound him to a pole in the middle of the compound and slowly beat him to death in front of the invited guests, who applauded ever more loudly in their intoxication.
Spare a thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for those who came home later, but whose suffering continues to this day. I shall not name any names, but in every case that I cite an affidavit has been made. There is the case of a young prisoner who was beaten repeatedly by Japanese rifle butts and then thrust into a small bamboo cage in the full sight of his fellow prisoners and kept there for several days without food or water. When the war ended and he came home an absolute wreck, did his release end his suffering? Not at all—he was to spend the next seven years in and out of Roehampton hospital, Guy's hospital, and the hospital for tropical diseases.
Let us reflect on the agonies of another survivor who is still alive today. In his years of captivity he suffered in succession chronic enteritis, dengue fever, bacillary dysentery, amoebic dysentery, tropical ulcers, pellagra, Weil's disease, pulmonary tuberculosis, beri-beri and rheumatic fever. On capture he weighed 11 stone, but on release he weighed four and a half stone. Despite his condition, he was repeatedly beaten by his gaolers. Since his return home, broken in health, he has lost the sight of one eye.
Let me tell hon. Members exactly what that man has experienced since his return home. He had rheumatic fever in an RAF hospital in December 1945. In 1952 he had an appendectomy. In 1973 he had a toe removed. In 1978 he had a prostatectomy, three operations in 20 hours, intensive care for five days and a transfusion of 26 pints of blood. In 1981 he had a massive detachment of the retina of his left eye. At that time he had glaucoma in his right eye. In 1982 he had a second detachment. I have the names of the distinguished surgeons who attended him. In June 1983 he had a third detachment, and in September of that year he had a fourth detachment.
In December 1984 he had a large cyst removed from his left testicle. That was at Luton and Dunstable hospital. In June 1985, he had an orchidectomy on the left side. In April 1986, his left eye was removed by an eye surgeon. In February 1988, he had a total replacement of his right knee. In 1990 he had a coronary artery bypass grafting.
We now come to the present year. In January, resulting from all that had gone before, he had an incisional hernia —his sternum had failed—and last month he had a freezing and destruction of haemorrhoidal tissue. I should like to know how, in heaven's name, that poor devil still lives—a life-long victim of Japanese cruelty.
Try to grasp if you can, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the fact that many of the survivors of that cruelty have had nightmares ever since. Men have told me how they wake up sweating and fearful, usually followed by bouts of depression. In such cases—I know of one—that has led to severe heart conditions. Thus the price of being a wartime guest of the Japanese is still being paid by many of our men 45 years later.
Yet that is only a tiny fraction of what has been suffered by men still living. Some of them will be known to hon.
Members on both sides who have connections with ex-service men's organisations. They will know perfectly well what I am talking about. All these cases were set out in affidavits that were signed and witnessed and checked at the Ministry of Defence. If there is any sense of honour in today's Japanese, they should make generous recompense without further delay—as the second richest nation on earth, they can well afford it.
They will have to face the issue anyway, whether they like it or not. For in 1988, I told the House that the Canadian defenders of Hong Kong had lodged a claim for compensation with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, based on resolution 1503 of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. That was done under the inspired leadership of a remarkable Canadian, Clifford Chatterton. He had not been a prisoner of the Japanese, but he had been severely wounded in the war. The Canadian claim had the full support of a number of leading international organisations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross the International Committee of Jurists, the World Veterans Federation, the International Commission of Health Professionals and Amnesty International. The Minister who replied was totally unaware that the Canadians had raised the matter in that way. The Canadian case was founded on details of the medical sequelae of what had happened to the victims of Japanese barbarism, and it called for compensation for gross violation of human rights.
Since then, I am glad to say that there have been impressive developments. The Japanese Labour Camp Survivors Association of Great Britain is well known to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who sits for a constituency that I once represented. That association, led superbly by Bill Holtham, whose experience I have already described, has submitted its own detailed case to the United Nations commission. Similar representations have been made by veterans' organisations in Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the Netherlands. The Dutch are deeply involved, because there were many Dutch people in south-east Asia.
I do not know what the response will be. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights gave Japan six months in which to provide an answer and that period is nearly over. My information is that there is a stirring of conscience in Japan especially among the younger people. Yesterday's Daily Telegraph, commenting that
the Japanese, the world's greatest face savers are learning to say sorry".
stated that the Japanese Prime Minister had apologised during an official visit by the Canadian Prime Minister. According to another newspaper account, Prime Minister Kaifu told Prime Minister Mulroney that Japan is trying to build on the lessons of the war. He said:
we have shown our contrition. We feel very rigorously contrite about the unbearable sufferings and hardships that were brought upon the peoples of the Asian Pacific by the acts of the Japanese state.
At a news conference a little later, Prime Minister Kaifu said:
I expressed this feeling very candidly to Prime Minister Mulroney. By saying that I expressed my apologies for the unbearable sufferings and the pains that were caused by the Japanese state against the Canadian people who experienced such sufferings in the Asian Pacific at the hands of the Japanese state.
Yet so far the Japanese Government have refused to offer compensation to second world war prisoners of war on the


ground that the peace treaties signed in 1951–52 terminated Japan's obligations. That was what I was told by the Minister who answered my Adjournment debate in 1988—that the matter was concluded by the peace treaty signed in 1951 within a few short years of the ghastly happenings that I have described.
If we are talking solely about apologies, what about apologies to the other five nations whose men suffered grievously? The pleas of veterans of six nations were received by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. What about an apology to British, American and Australian veterans? Incidentally, a higher proportion of American and Australian prisoners than British in the far east died at the hands of their captors. What about an apology to New Zealand and Dutch veterans? And while we are about it, what about an apology to the civilians of all six nations who had the misfortune to fall into Japanese hands?
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister who is to reply to this debate that what the Japanese did was in defiance of all the normal usages and conventions of war. They disgraced themselves before the world. I do not want to hammer them now—I want them to respond and to show that they are civilised. I expect the Governments of the six nations whose ex-service men have appealed to seek such a response from the Japanese. There are subtle ways of showing our intense displeasure to the Japanese Government, but this should be done.
As I understand it, the Japanese Prime Minister is to attend an economic summit meeting in London next month. May we therefore expect a similar apology here? I should state right away that apologies are not enough when we consider the agonies endured by the survivors, and by the widows and the children of those who did not return. Apologies—the Japanese Prime Minister must be joking, and if so, it is a joke in the worst possible taste from him or from any Government. Or perhaps he is sincere —if so, we shall see. Many of the victims are still alive today. Their families and friends cry out for justice.
It must be said, however, that in regard to today's Japanese, we are dealing not with a brutal military dictatorship responsible for the monstrous crimes against humanity that I have described, but with a people who have embraced parliamentary democracy, whose inventiveness and industrial efficiency have made them rich and respected. We must be fair about this. The opportunity is there for them to make a generous recompense and to demonstrate that today's Japan is a truly civilised and responsible member of the world community.
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that he will not, like his predecessor, say that the matter was closed by the signing of the 1951 treaty. It was not closed then, and it is not closed now. This is a grave issue about which not only the victims are still understandably bitter, but many people in our country and in five others. There cannot be one hon. Member of this House who has not encountered in his constituency someone who went through that bitter experience or met a widow of someone who did not return.

Mr. John Greenway: I have been listening intently to my right hon. Friend and I congratulate him on

securing this Adjournment debate and on the way in which he has presented his case. I am one of those to whom he referred who was born after these atrocities occurred.
I do not for one moment suggest that the boot could ever have been on the other foot, but were it on the other foot I have no doubt that hon. Members of this House would have responded generously in the way in which my right hon. Friend is suggesting that the Japanese Government should respond. I have constituents who have been caused to write to me to speak of the suffering that my right hon. Friend described so graphically to us tonight. They experienced that suffering. They express great support for his efforts.
The Japanese Government gave substantial support to the effort in the Gulf earlier this year. Substantial sums of money were paid. Does my right hon. Friend agree that some similar response is desirable and appropriate, bearing in mind that this year we were dealing with the horrors of the tyrant, Saddam Hussein, and we now have to put right the need for recompense for the horrors of what happened in the early 1940s?

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous reference to what I have said. I agree wholeheartedly with him. It is true that the Japanese, like other nations, made a contribution to the efforts of the coalition—which, incidentally, included some Arab nations—to deal with Saddam Hussein. That is not the subject of this debate, but it is a great tragedy that in the brilliant military operation against the world's fourth largest army—an army equipped with sophisticated weapons by nations which should have thought twice about it—hostilities were called off when just a few short days more would have allowed Saddam Hussein to be dealt with. One of the most tragic events is what happened then to the Kurds in northern Iraq. I understand that that subject may be raised later this evening, and I am glad that that is so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) put his finger on it. As more and more people become aware of the details of what our men went through, they will become more and more angry. My hon. Friend the Minister should bear in mind that many people in Britain and in the other five countries are deeply concerned. I give a warning—that if the Japanese choose to ignore the action taken by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, public opinion around the world will react.
My next point may sound like a diversion, but it is not. I ask the Minister to recall the extraordinary happenings in eastern Europe in the past two years. People power exerted itself successfully against cruel tyranny. A distinguished British observer, who happened to be in Berlin when the wall came tumbling down, and in Budapest and Prague at the crucial time in those cities, said of the peaceful revolutions which took place:
no Bastilles were stormed, no guillotines were erected and lamp-posts were used only for lighting the streets.
We still do not fully comprehend the extraordinary developments that took place as communism tumbled in eastern Europe. I know some of the countries well, yet I never thought that the end of communist tyranny in eastern Europe would come so soon.

Dr. Michael Clark: My right hon. Friend has already acknowledged my interest in the far east prisoners of war from south-east Essex, where we both


live. My right hon. Friend is coming to the end of his speech. Is he aware that time is not on the side of the people to whom he refers? Many of the men whom we both know were strapping young chaps of 20 in 1941. They are now 70. While it is a miracle that they have survived at all, they are entering the twilight of their lives and if action is not taken speedily it will be too late for them to benefit from anything that my right hon. Friend is attempting to achieve. For all the men who were 20, there were others who were 25, 26 or 27, who had wives in Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Holland or America. Many of those women were widowed and never married again. Many of them brought up their children or led their lonely lives without any assistance from anyone. They were five or six years older and are now in their mid 70s. Time is important for them, too. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is urgent that any action that is taken should be taken immediately?

Sir Bernard Braine: I entirely agree. That is what I have been saying for years. I said it soon after the end of the second world war. I was out there and saw some of the suffering as our men came out of Japanese prison camps. It is not to me but to Governments that my hon. Friend's question should be put. That is the purpose of raising the matter on the Adjournment today.
I am perfectly well aware of the advancing years. If I was a youngster when I joined the Army at the beginning of the second world war, I am not exactly a youngster now. None of us knows how much time we have. The reason why I listed the injuries and sufferings of a small number of the people who were prisoners of the Japanese was that I wanted to make people realise, not only in the House but in the nation as a whole, that the men who survived all that are walking miracles. When one knows someone as I do, and has listened to that person's private griefs and sorrows and witnessed his sufferings, it brings tears to one's eyes.
Not I but Governments must be impressed—and that means the Governments in Britain and in Canada. I should like to know what Canadian veterans intend to ask Prime Minister Mulroney. What response did he make to the Japanese Prime Minister? I understand that they are already asking that question. The same will happen in the Netherlands, the United States, and certainly in Australia and New Zealand. It is not to me that the questions should be addressed. I do not have to be convinced—all my political life I have fought against injustice wherever I have found it, and I have found it sometimes in Britain. The purpose of an Adjournment debate is to bring to the attention of Parliament wrongs that have been done and not put right by the authorities. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and I know where his heart lies on this matter.
My hon. Friend interrupted me—I do not mind because it was a perfectly valid point—when I was saying that we have witnessed in Europe in the past two years people power being exercised against the authorities. If there is not a response by Governments—and first of all by the Japanese—that anger will be reflected by public opinion in the countries concerned. This is a democracy and people cannot be prevented from learning the truth. There is anger in the constituencies on this subject and I hope that, as a result of this debate, many more people will start asking why we have had to wait all these years for something to be done.
I hope, therefore, that when the Japanese Prime Minister comes to London for the economic summit, he will apologise to us, too. If an apology can be made to Canada, it can be made to the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands. That will be the beginning, however, not the end—we want not just words of contrition, but generosity of spirit and practical compensation. If the Japanese, now the second richest nation on earth, could make a contribution while others did their fighting for them in the Gulf, they can find the money to make decent reparation to men who have suffered long years of ill health and deprivation as a result of the treatment that they received from the Imperial Japanese army.
I trust that the Minister appreciates that this grave matter will not go away and that there are many people in the House and vast numbers outside who will weigh his every word.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I support and endorse much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said. I wish at the outset to express a personal, family interest. The Burma Campaign was my campaign in which my father, brothers and cousins were deeply involved. I never quite forgave the British Government for not acknowledging VJ day in the way in which they acknowledged VE day. Our army was the forgotten army—the 14th Army—and one of my cousins had the misfortune to be imprisoned by the Japanese.
People may say that it happened a long time ago. To me, in my lifetime, it was not all that long ago. The Cambridgeshire regiment suffered particular misfortune, and there were not too many survivors. Unlike my right hon. Friend, I do not feel any real vindictiveness over what happened to my family, although, in a way, the survivors never really survived, even if they survived physically. The damage was very deep, lifelong and permanent.
Neither I nor my father nor my brothers had any feeling of hatred against the Japanese people. Even so, the rules of war—there is a thin veneer separating barbarism from the notion of civilisation—were cruelly broken and people and their relatives were deeply injured. An outrage was committed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point asked for an apology. I was in Canada in recent weeks when an apology was given to the Canadian people. I do not think that such an apology is necessarily right. I should have thought that my Japanese friends, recognising the enormity of what was inflicted, would respond generously to the few survivors of that agony and would, in doing so, not only want to wipe the slate clean on an unhappy past but would wish to represent to a new generation the thought that things have changed, that there is a new Japan and that there is a new relationship between our people.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: In his inspiring and excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) referred to the captivity experienced by many civilians in the far east. In October 1988 I had the privilege of attending a reunion of 350 people in my constituency. The gathering was held


there because a remarkable lady named Mrs. Renee Cumberbatch, who herself suffered incarceration, organised the event. I met people who had come from various parts of the world and whose spirit and resilience were magnificent.
Mrs. Cumberbatch was 22 when she was sent with her five-month old baby daughter to a camp by the Japanese. She had been forcibly separated from her husband. In the camp—she wrote these details later in a report—sanitation was poor, daily meals comprised a bowl of Japanese-style porridge, thin stew, black bread and gruel and she emerged after less than a year weighing about six stones, despite being nearly 6ft tall.
One could cite many examples of that type of suffering. I am anxious to put on record the fact that, in addition to the appalling suffering experienced by our military prisoners of war, there were, in terms of the British—and many others from other nations—about 8,000 people caught up in those appalling events. We should remember them in supporting what my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point has asked for tonight.

Sir Antony Buck: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) for raising this topic. I was a schoolboy aged 11 when war broke out. My mother was chairwoman of the Prisoners of War Relatives' Association. As the House knows, a substantial part of the Cambridgeshire regiment went straight to Singapore and was immediately captured, having hardly any opportunity to fight.
Throughout my childhood years during the war our family house was full of parcels destined for that area. Only a relatively small number of parcels got through, but my recollection as a teenager is of the walking very tall, emaciated, rather yellow British men of the Cambridgeshire regiment who came to thank my mother. Although she was only part of the team, her name was on the parcels, being the chairwoman of the organisation. They came to thank her because, although only a relatively small proportion of parcels got through, they had saved a considerable number of lives.
We cannot go on living in the past. We must look to the future. That is why I hope that, with the enormous prosperity that Japan enjoys—because of the hard work, assiduity and skills of the Japanese people—that country will respond with magnanimity to the representations that have been made in the House. Then we can get away from the past and start looking to the future. The Japanese have great wealth and large numbers of them have great generosity of spirit. If we can get rid of this problem of the past once and for all, a great service will have been achieved for the civilised community.
I hope that the Minister will echo that sentiment when he replies to the debate. I hope that we can get rid of that aspect of the past by a generous response from the Japanese. In view of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point said, hopefully we can put it all behind us and look to the future by co-operating in making the world a better and more prosperous place.

Dr. Michael Clark: I, too, pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) for having raised this subject on the Adjournment and for the passion and sincerity of his speech.
He and I jointly launched a book a few years ago on the experiences of a south-east Essex man as a Japanese prisoner of war. My right hon. Friend is also aware of the other books on the subject that have been written. I have just finished reading a book by John Cosworth entitled "Line of Lost Lives" which details clearly the privations suffered by the Cambridgeshire regiment, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). Many members of the Cambridgeshire regiment were captured at that time and suffered terribly at the hands of the Japanese.
Three years ago, a constituent of mine published a book called "Tamajo" which my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and I launched. Its author, Mr. Ernest Warwick, suffered badly at the hands of the Japanese and came out of a Japanese camp, as my right hon. Friend has described, broken in health. But the remarkable thing about such men is that they were not broken in spirit and managed to survive because their spirit was not broken. They received as much help as possible from the medical services of this country when they returned.
As a boy of 10 or 11 years old, I remember having my first post-war holiday on the Lincolnshire coast when my father returned from the war and seeing those gaunt, skeletal men trying to feed themselves back up. They spent no more than a half an hour in the garden before they were fatigued and would return to the house to try to sleep and to get more food.
My constituent and many others like him, who returned to this country in the late 1940s and had fine medical treatment, are often denied the compassion that they deserve when they go before medical boards and are declared 5 per cent. disabled. They are severely disabled from the privation that they suffered in Japan.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that substantial compensation will be made by the Japanese? We, too, need to be more compassionate in medical and social security terms to those who have suffered, and not just dismiss their complaints as the aches or pains of old age. They are far more serious than that—they are the aches and pains of suffering, anguish and of seeing their friends die. I hope that, as well as expecting the Japanese to make compensation, we shall show more compassion than we have in the past to our fellow country men and women who suffered incarceration by the Japanese for a number of years.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am among the last to rise because further speeches are superfluous and I am not sure whether anything could improve on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). However, it struck me as he spoke that there has been little pressure in this country for the cause that he so well espoused. At first sight, that is surprising. I then recalled my uncle, who is the sole survivor of a squadron. He is alive and well—more or less—and in his 70s. He has written and contributed to two books and there is an


account of his war years in the Imperial War museum. I have never heard him ask me, as a Member of Parliament, "Please will you do something?"
As the sole survivor of a squadron, my uncle can recount crossing the sea by a boat on which hundreds of people were packed, knowing that by the time it arrived, very few would be alive. He, too, was beaten and had his nails pulled out and he escaped more than once. Moreover, he has had all the diseases. At the end of the war, he left Japan with a man who went mad. People who have been through such experiences do not complain or besiege Members of Parliament morning, noon and night, asking for help. The aspect that I remember most about my uncle is that, despite all the terrible traumas that he has endured, he does not complain. Those who died all around him cannot complain.
There is a new mood of reconciliation between countries throughout the world. We hear today that the Bulgarians have admitted the deliberate killing of Mr. Markov in the Strand. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point is responsible for great work with the Soviets, trying to get them to admit to the most awful crimes perpetrated in modern history. Last week, I was in Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, and I know that Germany is remorseful about the atrocities of the second world war and the holocaust. Perhaps the time has come for the Japanese to show similar remorse. It is not too late and they should not be misled by the fact that the clamour has not been enormous in this country because of people like my uncle, who have not been inclined, out of concern for their lost friends and because so many people are not here to raise that clamour.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who will no doubt meet Mr. Kaifu when he comes shortly, will pass on the excellent speech made by my right hon. Friend and the depth of feeling that exists in the House and in the country among those of us who know of or are closely related to those who suffered so grievously at the hands of a nation. I hope that Japan will wish to purge its wrongdoing by making further recompense as is now requested by the House.

Mr. Alan Amos: I, too, add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) for raising this issue again and for keeping it before the House. He was absolutely right to say that the issue will not go away. Clearly, I was not in the war—I was not even born when it finished—but my father was. He was in Burma but, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, although he suffered he never complained. He does not talk about the war and asks for nothing. Such people should be given compensation by the Government and the nation.
The issue will not go away because my generation, too, will keep the issue alive. Will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that when the Japanese Prime Minister comes to this country he will raise with him the issue of unit. 731, which committed hideous, outrageous and evil experiments on prisoners of war? Members of that unit knew what they were doing and their actions were deliberate and evil. Moreover, the perpetrators are alive and living in Tokyo, and the Japanese Government know who they are. Some of them have been honoured for work in various fields. I find that deeply offensive.
The House in its wisdom has decided to proceed with war crimes trials. I disagree with that decision; but in order to be consistent, if we are prepared to deal with men whose actions 50 years ago were so appalling that we believe it right to act on their consequences now, it is no good saying at the same time that actions that took place in Japan or Asia 50 years ago should be forgotten. If the House is to be consistent and respected, we must treat war crimes in the same way whether they were perpetrated by Lithuanians living here or by Japanese living in Tokyo. The principle is the same.
If we are to believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) told the House, that there is a new Japan, let us look for a genuine act of contrition and repentance by the Japanese Government and people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point said, a sincere apology is not enough. We want generous financial compensation—and from Japan even generous is not enough in my opinion. We must judge whether there is a new Japan by its actions and attitude. If the Japanese Prime Minister still cannot offer an apology or compensation, we must draw the conclusion that there is no new Japan—that for some extraordinary reason the Japanese are denying their crimes still and are not prepared to face up to the horrors of what they did. That in itself would be a shame and a sham.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): Towards the end of his speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said that the purpose of an Adjournment debate was to raise matters of this kind. I wholeheartedly agree. It is one of the strengths of our democratic procedures that these Adjournment debates should exist. I am sure that they do not exist in every other democratic country, but in our system they mean that issues of the sort that my right hon. Friend has brought before us, in a speech which inspired eight colleagues to speak in his support, are debated in the House.
Before I comment further on my right hon. Friend's speech, I want to mention what my other hon. Friends had to say. Many of their comments were based on family experiences in one way or another. I was born in 1943. All of us of my age know from relatives and friends and other contacts of the suffering that so many people endured in the Japanese camps. I was impressed by the family experience recounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) in a speech that was quiet and gentle, and without bitterness.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) mentioned civilians, a group who should not be forgotten in these tragic stories. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) spoke of his childhood experiences and of the Cambridgeshire regiment. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) made a point about disability boards and the compassion that should be shown in these cases. I offer him this guarantee: I shall report his comments to my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Social Security.
We were all moved by the contribution of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who spoke of his uncle. He pointed out the remarkable fact


that people who have suffered such great traumas have survived and found their lives made more easy by showing a quiet courage without complaint. I sense that they derive some comfort from not complaining because it is easier for them to live their lives if they do not remember too much about the dreadful suffering that they saw and endured.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) referred to constituency interests, and there were two interventions by my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Rochford.
We were all shaken by the facts about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point reminded us. People who are as young as I am have read of these stories, and anyone in his late forties, like me, will have had an upbringing of roughly the same experiences. Quite apart from the graphic detail provided by my right hon. Friend, I was not properly aware before of the fact that for so many of these wretched and unhappy people the horrors that they suffered continue even today.
My right hon. Friend is assiduous in many cases about which he feels strongly, and he has been assiduous in this one for a number of years. I fear, however, that it will be no easier for me than it was for my predecessors to give him a more encouraging reply, but I can at least deal with the matter rather more fully than if we had had a mere half-hour in which to deal with it. I can touch on some of the recent developments of importance that have arisen since this matter was debated in 1988.
If my comments appear inadequate, I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that that does not mean that the Government are unaware of or insensitive to the feelings of those whose suffering has given rise to this debate. I would not dissent from what my right hon. Friend said about the dreadful experiences of those who had the misfortune to be taken prisoner by the Japanese. We have said many times—I make no apology for repeating it tonight—that we must never forget the appalling conditions under which they were incarcerated or the fact that it was their sacrifice and service which allowed us the privilege of discussing their plight in a free Parliament.
The courage and selflessness shown and the awful hardship suffered by these men and women are indelibly marked on all our memories. My right hon. Friend has first-hand experience of the relevant period of the war, but for his generation and mine alike, the events that he has described tonight are a powerful reminder both of the heights of bravery and of the depths of cruelty of which man is capable. That is why I have profound sympathy with the distress and anger that many survivors of that terrible period continue to feel.
Letters from those who lived through that time or from their relatives are regularly received by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. They convey in graphic terms the physical and mental suffering which many people continue to endure. The fact that Japan, which inflicted such suffering, is now a successful and prosperous country must add to the bitterness of those people. I completely understand and respect their strong conviction that the additional compensation for which my right hon. Friend has eloquently argued should now be made available.
I shall set out again the settlement reached in 1951 in the peace treaty with Japan. I do not suggest that it is a tidy

bureaucratic solution to the problem and brooks no opposition, but simply set out the historical facts of the matter. As my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members know, the peace treaty signed in San Francisco on 8 September 1951 contained a specific provision for compensation for former prisoners of war. We had insisted on that provision, which had not been included in the original treaty, because we thought it important that the treaty should recognise the cruel and barbaric treatment to which allied service men in the far east had been subjected.
The negotiations leading to the treaty were heavily influenced by the moving debate in the House in May 1951, with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point is familiar. That debate helped to develop the Government's policy and negotiating position as the treaty was drawn up. No one could dispute that the issue of compensation was crucial and it was the only aspect of the treaty on which a debate was held prior to its signing. The 1951 treaty ended the state of war between the United Kingdom and Japan.
I shall briefly outline the provisions that are relevant to the debate. I know that I am repeating some of the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when he replied to the 1988 debate on this subject. Article 14 of the treaty recognised
that Japanese should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war".
The treaty gave the allied powers the right to seize and dispose of Japanese property within their jurisdiction. Article 14(b) concluded:
Except as otherwise provided in the present Treaty, the Allied Powers waive all reparations claims of the Allied Powers, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of any actions taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the War".
Article 16 is central to the matter, because it provided specifically for the compensation of prisoners. It states:
As an expression of its desire to indemnify those members of the armed forces of the Allied Powers who suffered undue hardships while Prisoners of War of Japan, Japan will transfer its assets and those of its nationals in countries which were neutral during the war, or which were at war with any of the Allied Powers or, at its option, the equivalent of such assets, to the International Committee of the Red Cross which shall liquidate such assets and distribute the resultant fund to appropriate national agencies for the benefit of former Prisoners of War and their families on such basis as it may determine to be equitable.
From the disposal of Japanese property within its jurisdiction, the United Kingdom received just over £3 million. The United Kingdom's share of the £4·5 million that the Japanese Government placed at the disposal of the International Red Cross in accordance with article 16 of the treaty was just over £1·6 million.
It was agreed in a minute between the Japanese and the allied powers that the payment of the £4·5 million would be recognised as a full discharge by the Japanese Government of their obligations under article 16 of the peace treaty. As is well known, and as my right hon. Friend has said, the sum of £76 paid to service men or to their dependants was unbelievably small. No British Government have ever denied that. In the debate on the peace treaty before its ratification, a Government spokesman said that he would have preferred to be able to offer greater compensation. I am sure that all members of the Government and the Opposition at that time shared that wish. As my right hon. Friend knows, the treaty was signed by a Labour Government and ratified by their Conservative successors.
I sympathise with my right hon. Friend's contention that the settlement was unsatisfactory but, as my predecessors have said, the provisions of the treaty remove any possibility of the British Government claiming further compensation or reparations from the Japanese Government. That is our best understanding of our legal obligations, although I hear with respect my right hon. Friend's different views.
We are not alone in that understanding. We have been in touch with our missions in the countries that my right hon. Friend mentioned to ascertain the position of their Governments. Other allied powers share our view that the question of compensation was settled by the 1951 peace treaty. However inadequate the terms may appear now or appeared at the time, it was accepted that the Japanese had fully discharged their obligations.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and I am not surprised at anything that he has said so far, because he is basing his reply on legal considerations. In 1951, Japan's economy had been affected by the war and by Japan's defeat. The pitiful compensation was paid out of assets that we had seized when, without declaring war, Japan attacked the United States, the British, French and Dutch in the far east.
Forty years on, we are not talking about a defeated nation but one which is the second richest in the world. Down Whitehall, every third or fourth car is Japanese. Japan is doing very well out of the free world. I am arguing not on purely legal grounds but on moral grounds. If the Japanese have any honour, they will recognise that, since 1951, thousands of ex-service men have endured 40 years of suffering. I am talking not about the dead, although they are not forgotten, but about men who, since the signing of that peace treaty, have lived in agony arid are sleepless at night. God knows how many of them continue to live.
We are talking about 40 years on. The Japanese put up their hands and say, "We signed the peace treaty all those years ago and that is the end of it", and my hon. Friend says that that is the legal position and that is what we must accept. That is not good enough.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have been describing the 1951 peace treaty. I shall say something later about the change in Japanese circumstances since the war. I reiterate that I was describing the 1951 peace treaty, but my right hon. Friend will be aware that that does not mean that the Government will impede or obstruct in any way the private attempts of any group to obtain further compensation. The Government could not directly associate themselves with such attempts, but we have every sympathy with their aim.
I should not give my right hon. Friend any reason to believe that the chances of success of claims for further compensation are likely to be good, but I shall touch upon a recent development to the claim lodged with the United Nations Commission for Human Rights by the Japanese Labour Camp Survivors Association. It was lodged under a procedure known as resolution 1503, on which my right hon. Friend made comment.
I shall go into a little detail about the procedure. It is a confidential system that is designed to establish, on the basis of personal petition, whether there has occurred a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights by

states rather than to adjudicate on individual complaints. There is no obligation on the Japanese Government to pay compensation to complainants under the procedure.
It gives me little comfort to refer to what must be regarded as cold legal technicalities. Indeed, my right hon. Friend intervened to make that very point. I can say, however, that I hope very much that the Japanese Government will respond to the petitions as sympathetically as possible.
I referred earlier to the bitterness that many must feel to see the country that was guilty of such cruelty and oppression two generations ago now so successful and prosperous and a member of the world community. The world has changed. That makes it even harder for the wounds inflicted at the time, for which, perhaps, no compensation can ever be entirely adequate.
It is important to understand the way in which Japan has changed, which my right hon. Friend has generously acknowledged, and why it has changed. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will allow me one more quotation from article 14 of the 1951 treaty. The contents of the article are not always remembered now. The passage states that:
it is also recognised that the resources of Japan are not presently sufficient, if it is to maintain a viable economy, to make complete reparation for all such damage and suffering and at the same time meet its other obligations.
That was stated in 1951 because the negotiators of the treaty were acutely conscious of the terribly dangerous precedent that had been set after the first world war by the onerous burdens of the treaty of Versailles.
Of course, the negotiators had conflicting obligations. They had as far as possible to ensure an equitable settlement of manifest wartime injustice; they had to ensure also that the circumstances that led to the war were prevented from recurring. There may have been no very happy medium between the two responsibilities, but I do not think that we can easily ignore the imperative that lay behind the words that I have just quoted.
Japan is prosperous and successful and plays a constructive and responsible role in the affairs of the world, because the negotiators of the peace treaty were far-sighted enough to recognise the awful dangers of squeezing Japan as Germany had been squeezed after the first world war. In the 1930s and 1940s, Japan was a terrifying and brutal force in the region. As my right hon. Friend has rightly conceded, Japan is now democratic and peaceful. Its military strength once laid nations waste, but its economic strength now definitely contributes to their welfare and prosperity.
Sometimes, Japan is criticised for not making more contribution in terms of personnel and resources, as well as money, to the protection of the world order in which she herself has grown and prospered. That has been touched upon, for example, in terms of the recent crisis in the Gulf. However much it is right to encourage Japan to play a role in such affairs commensurate with its economic strength, we must recognise that the pacifism and self-restraint that holds it back from doing everything that we like to see was born of a determination among the Japanese never to allow themselves again to be seduced down the path of totalitarian oppression and aggression overseas. We welcome that commitment to peace and justice and must remember that it owes its strength to the spirit of magnanimity and conciliation that infused the treaty of peace that was signed 40 years ago.
My right hon. Friend said that there is a growing recognition in Japan of some of the harrowing truths which he has described. I believe that a growing sense of contrition is being expressed in Japan for the atrocities which were committed. Most Japanese today were born after the end of the second world war. Many others were too young at the end of the war to have played any substantial part in it. It is right that the new generations should know enough of the evils of the past to ensure that they are never repeated. It is equally right that we should never forget our debt to the generation which, as my right hon. Friend recalled, defended our freedom in that war.
It is a matter of the deepest regret to me that I am prevented from giving a more positive response to the questions that my right hon. Friend raised. I have tried to explain the Government's views of the underlying principles that bear on the issues. These are not questions that can be debated in terms of political expediency. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that my response, however discouraging it must seem, is meant to convey a spirit of great respect for the memory of the men and women whose almost unimaginable suffering we have been discussing.

Mr. Lawrence: Before my hon. Friend concludes his reply—has he done so?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall respond to my hon. and learned Friend—

Mr. Lawrence: I think that we were waiting to hear from my hon. Friend, even to the very end of his reply, that he would do his best to ensure that one of our Ministers will raise the debate and the tenor of it with Mr. Kaifu and his team when they come to London in the near future. I agree that there may be some legal justification for Japan saying, "That was the agreement, that is what we were bound to and we can or will go no further." However, is

not true remorse something that prompts one to do something that is over and above that which the law requires to be done? It would be most heartening to us—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. and learned Member has already addressed the House once. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Lawrence: I will be, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We are asking that my hon. Friend the Minister will say to Mr. Kaifu and his team that true recompense means doing more than the law requires.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: rose—

Sir Bernard Braine: I shall be very brief and very much to the point.
We are to have a visit from the Prime Minister of Japan. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to go into any detail on what the Japanese Prime Minister should be told, but common sense and common justice demand that the intense feeling that exists in this country, especially among those who know what happened, should not be disregarded, and that what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said a moment ago will be taken to heart. The Japanese Prime Minister should be told in a discreet but determined way that there is a debt to be paid.
I do not care a damn about the legalities of the matter: I am concerned about the way in which, in 1951 when the Korean war was upon us and various other pressures were coming into play, a treaty was signed whereby our Government took upon themselves the responsibility for waiving claims against Japan in future—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that this is a serious matter, and I do not question the right hon. Gentleman's depth of feeling, but other hon. Members are waiting to address the House.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend was helpful enough to say that he did not expect me to reply in any detail, but I can assure him that his points have been noted.

Kurdish People

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to have the second Adjournment debate this evening, and it follows in a timely fashion from the previous debate. It is chilling that both debates are about war and the outcome of war, and many of the discussions appear to be the same —for instance, the desirability of war reparations, which is also being discussed in relation to Iraq.
The moving debate that we have just heard clearly demonstrates man's inhumanity to man writ large—horrors, cruelty and indifference to suffering on a horrendous scale. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said that it was necessary to spell out those horrors, and that we must not forget. I wonder whether we ever learn anything from history, or whether the only lesson we learn from it is that we do not learn anything at all.
Wars are catastrophic. The right hon. Gentleman detailed the long-term effects on people's' lives produced by the second world war. We clearly understand that the consequences of war, including the war with Iraq, have already destroyed many lives and will continue to make many suffer, not least the Kurds, who have been persecuted by Saddam Hussein and Iraqi Governments over many decades. The situation continues to deteriorate.
The plight of the Kurds in Iraq at the hands of Saddam Hussein may no longer feature every night on our television screens, but no one should be fooled into believing that their plight has eased or improved. Safe havens—the Prime Minister's idea to encourage Kurds off the mountainsides away from the horrendous experiences and tragedies that unfolded at the end of the war with Iraq—should not lead us to believe that all Kurds are safe and back in their homes, their safety guaranteed by allied troops.
The impression created is that the Kurds have gone home, but alas that is far from the truth. They have moved to districts, many where there is a presence of allied troops, where they believe that they will be safe, but they have not necessarily returned to their homes. Half a million or more Kurds are in the no man's land on the border between Turkey and Iraq, and there are a million or more either in Iran or on the Iran-Iraq border. All those Kurds are unprotected and without aid.
There is a chronic shortage of aid, both in Iraq and Iran, to support and help the Kurds. We have seen and heard horrific reports from Iraq about the lack of medical supplies. We have heard of operations being conducted by doctors who are unable to wash their hands between operations and where flies hover over patients and settle on open wounds. There have been detailed reports of the lack of electricity and vital clean water, not to mention the lack of food and supplies that people need to live. The tragedy is truly appalling and the suffering is great.
Today, I spoke to the Iraqi relief co-ordination group, which works closely with the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and regularly receives information from a range of groups including Oxfam, the Red Cross, the Refugee Council, Medical Aid for Iraq, Kurdish Relief, the Kurdish Cultural Centre and the Islamic Cultural Centre, to name but a few. They all say that they consistently receive reports from camps and districts where the Kurds are living in Turkey, Iran and Iraq where United

Nations aid supplies are simply not getting through to those who desperately need them. Supplies of aid still fall desperately short of what is needed. For the Kurds in the south, nothing, or next to nothing, is getting through. The Kurds are not certain where the aid is going, but believe that it is being redirected—or intercepted—by Saddam Hussein.
The Kurds also say that their latest information is that in the next two days the supplies of chlorine left in Iraq will be exhausted. That means no clean water. Cholera, typhoid and other appalling infectious diseases are already widespread and many people do not have access to clean drinking water.
Worse still, the Kurds now fear a new genocide—a new war initiated by Saddam Hussein. I am deeply concerned that the signs and messages sent by the allies to Saddam Hussein are leading him to believe that he will soon be able to continue his appalling persecution of the Kurds unthwarted. The political background is complex, but we know that the only lasting solution to the problem that the Kurdish people face is a political one. I am told that in the past two weeks 60,000 Iraqi troops have amassed in the Sulimaniyah area, accompanied by 60 tanks from Kirkuk. That arises directly from comments made by the allies and it demonstrates clearly what Saddam Hussein's intentions are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) intends to contribute to the debate if he is able, and he will detail the appalling record of the resumption of Saddam Hussein's oppression of the Kurds and others in Iraq. The signals are that a new wave of atrocities is on its way to Kurdistan. The truth is that Iraqi Kurdistan may well now be on the precipice of a new period of oppression which is now building up.
The Kurds have made it clear that they want to see a democratic Iraq and, within that, an autonomous or confederated Kurdish area negotiated directly within a democratic Iraq. They are not looking for an independent Kurdistan.
At present, negotiations have been continuing in Baghdad between Kurdish representatives and the Iraqi Government and it had been hoped that an agreement would be reached with the Iraqi Government which would later be ratified internationally in some way, perhaps by a resolution through the United Nations which would specifically guarantee that the Kurds would be able to live in a democratic Iraq free from repression and in security. But the United Nations appears to have sent the wrong message again. It said in July last year through its ambassador to Saddam Hussein that an invasion of Kuwait would be an Arab affair and nothing to do with the UN—and we know how that situation unfolded. The UN is now saying that it must withdraw its troops by 15 June, and the number of troops in the area has already declined from 22,000 on 21 May to 20,000 now.
Saddam Hussein has seen that as an opportunity to drag his feet in negotiations with the Kurds so that the agreement will not be reached before the allied forces have left. Then he will no doubt terminate the discussions and move heavily against the Kurds. Negotiations have been caught on three main areas. There is the question of geographical boundaries for a Kurdish area and the question of guarantees and security for that area. There are also problems in relation to the constitution involving the apportionment of oil revenues. Perhaps more importantly, there is also the question of the Arabisation


that has gone on in Kurdish areas, where once-Kurdish towns have been cleared and populated by Arabs. The Iraqis have refused to include them in the debate. The Government need to go to the United Nations for more international pressure to be applied to Saddam Hussein to negotiate seriously and to make progress on the agreements with the Kurds for the establishment of a democratic Iraq.
As I have said, a solution is not possible unless it is a political solution. A political agreement must be achieved and the comments made by the United States representatives and forces of withdrawal have not helped that political process. Indeed, they may plunge the Kurds into persecution and another war, as I have outlined.
Let us not forget that it is not only Iraq which persecutes the Kurds. The Turkish president was in Paris yesterday lobbying and applying for membership of the European Community. In Turkey, the Kurds are not allowed to speak their own language except in the privacy of their own homes. They are not allowed to sing in their own language except at private parties. Education and publishing in the Kurdish language are banned, and there is an enforced 15-mile zone on the Turkey-Iraq border where forced removal of Kurds occurs, with no resettlement plans, so as to break the links between the Kurdish communities in Turkey and Iraq.
The Kurds are talking of returning to the mountains because they fear what Saddam Hussein plans for them. An article in The Independent earlier this week quoted American troops in the region. It said:
'See that man in my car over there?' the American colonel asked … 'I've tried to help him but I can't. When the Iraqis come back in here, they're going to kill him. But I can't get him out.'
Thousands of people face that prospect under Saddam Hussein.
We plead with the Government that the Kurds, despite the absence of their plight from our television screens, must not be left with no protection against Saddam Hussein. Pressure must be applied through the United Nations and internationally to ensure that Saddam Hussein negotiates seriously on a political settlement. We need immediate and unequivocal undertakings that Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey will not be abandoned and a detailed strategy to ensure that massive aid gets through to those who need it.
There has been much talk of building a new world order. The previous Adjournment debate was on the consequences of a war 50 years ago. Surely we must have learnt that a new world order cannot be based on or grow from the horrors, indifference, persecution and slaughter of the Kurds in Iraq. I press the Minister as hard as I can to send a clear message from the House that we shall not desert the Kurds and that they will be supported positively and continuously in their struggle to establish a free, democratic Iraq.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on securing this Adjournment debate. It could not be more timely to have a debate on the plight of the Kurds, because the history of the past 70 years shows that

there has been a profound lack of discussion by the House of Commons and successive British Governments of the situation facing them.
I am not a newcomer to the subject as I have been heavily involved in issues affecting Kurdistan since I became a Member of the House. Many Kurdish people from Iran, Iraq and Turkey who have sought asylum here have made their homes in my constituency. The way in which the Kurdish people have been treated is one of the great injustices of the century. We witness on television, which was not available to earlier generations, the horror of life for many Kurdish people, such as the easy death of so many young Kurds, the abject poverty in which many of them live and the profound ignorance of the rest of the world of their plight.
The Kurds should be living in an area the size of France, but their population of more than 20 million is largely ignored by the rest of the world. The Ottoman empire collapsed at the end of the first world war, and the Kurdish people, mainly through accidents of geography and topography, enjoyed a semi-autonomous existence.
The Kurdish people have brought much learning to the world. Saladin himself was a Kurd. Kurdistan produced many other heroic people. At the end of the first world war it was hoped that the Kurdish people would receive justice. The treaty of Sévrres, which was signed in 1920 but not ratified, contains three crucial articles. Article 62 made reference to a commission sitting in Constantinople, composed of three members appointed by the British, French and Italian Governments, to determine the boundaries of Kurdistan.
In article 63, the Turkish Government agreed to accept and execute the decisions of the commission mentioned in article 62 within three months of their communication. Article 64 dealt with the recognition of that arrangement by the then League of Nations. That treaty was the source of some hope and provided an opportunity for the Kurdish people but, tragically, it was never ratified. Instead, Mustafa Kemal led the development of the modern state of Turkey, and the British Government decided to back modern Turkey rather than the aspirations of the Kurdish people. The RAF undertook chemical bombardments of the Barzani-led Kurdish separatists in 1922. Britain has very bloody hands in the history of Kurdistan and of the Kurdish people.
The treaty of Lausanne, which was ratified in 1923, expunged from the record anything to do with Kurdistan or the Kurdish people. Kurdistan was obliterated from the modern political map.
There is something very tragic about Kurdish history and the way in which national movements developed in each of the countries in which Kurdish people lived—Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. In every case, there has been manipulation of the Kurdish people. Iranian Kurdish people are backed by Iraq. Iraqi Kurdish people are backed by Iran. Turkish Kurdish people are backed by Iraq, and so on. The awful circle continues. The Kurdish people are the losers every time.
There have been notable assassinations, including that of Dr. Ghasamlou, the leader of the Kurdish people in Iraq, who was disgracefully murdered by Iranian agents while trying to negotiate on behalf of his people in Switzerland. Many others died in the same cause.
I hope that even now, in the midst of the horrors of the aftermath of the Gulf war, it will be recognised that a tragedy that has occurred repeatedly over the past 70 years must not arise again in the coming months and years.
It is deeply moving to talk to Kurdish people. One finds Kurdish people in almost every city in the world. They say, "Yes, 1 am a Kurd. I do not have a country, I do not have a language and I do not have a literature that the world recognises." But when Kurdish people come together to hear the singing of Sivein Perver, a marvellous entertainer if ever there was one, who attracted 3,000 people to Kensington town hall for an nueroz celebration, which I attended, one realises the spirit and strength of the Kurdish culture, and the determination of the Kurdish people.
Many Kurds have been compelled to migrate to the cities, to do the dirty jobs that no one else will do. Many have sought political asylum in this country, as in others. Often, they have not been well treated. In 1989 Siho lyuguven took his own life rather than be deported back to the horrors of the fascist regime in Turkey. I could cite many other examples.
I hope that, in the aftermath of the Gulf war, we will look again at the way in which the Kurdish people are treated. I was one of the Members of Parliament—and others are present in the Chamber tonight—who did not support the Gulf war in any way. We did not see that it would solve any of the problems of the region. One now sees oil wells on fire in Kuwait, marshal law imposed on the streets of Kuwait, destruction throughout Iraq, and the carnage of the Kurdish, Shia, and Syrian peoples, and many others, throughout Iraq. The scenario is one of a managed instability in the region.
The United States and Britain, having fought a war for the liberation of Kuwait, are making no discernible efforts to bring democracy to that city. They say that they are supporting the Kurdish people, and then withdraw; at no stage have they said that they recognise the Kurdish people's right to self-determination, although that is now a clear and necessary demand.
Both Mr. Barzani and Mr. Talebani have visited the House several times, and I have come to know Mr. Barzani quite well over the years. Both are at present negotiating in good faith in Baghdad—attempting, on behalf of the Kurdish front and the Kurds who wish to unite, to achieve a solution that would give autonomy to Kurdistan within Iraq. Their crucial need is for aid and recognition; but aid is in short supply, while recognition is in no supply at all.
In Iraq, Saddam Hussein's forces are preparing once again to deal with what they describe as the Kurdish problem—that is, to impose Arabisation on Kurdish villages, just as the Turkish army has imposed "Turkification" on the Kurdistan villages in eastern Turkey, and just as Iran has done at various times in the past.
This is a tragedy of immense proportions. It has happened so many times before; now it is happening yet again. I hope that the Minister will recognise the justice of the Kurdish people's case, and will accept that there can be no peace in the region until the rights and demands of the Kurds are recognised internationally. Those who have died in the mountains—including the children who never came down from them—and those who are now dying of disease in the cities and camps in Iraq are victims of the whole awful process. They are victims of the carve-up of

1920; they are victims of the greed of oil companies and military powers; and they are victims of the latest Gulf war.
Those people need and deserve as much aid as can be conveyed to them. I am glad to say that aid is getting through to various parts of Iran and Iraq, and, to some extent, to Turkey, but it is not reaching all the Kurds. They are dying of preventable diseases, while the world watches on television screens and through television camera lenses. Something must be done, and action must be taken in the long term to prevent a repeat of this tragedy. I believe, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South, that that will indeed be prevented if the importance of the current Baghdad negotiations is recognised and the United Nations ratifies them after their completion.
Instead of snuggling up to the Turkish Government, as they have done so many times, the British Government should recognise that the treatment of the Kurds in Turkey is nothing short of abominable. The cosmetic changes to the laws that the Turkish Government have introduced in the past few months do not absolve them of responsibility for such a large Turkish army presence in Kurdistan. People whom I have met in villages on the Iraq-Turkey border have been arrested on a whim; their villages have been razed to the ground and their families moved miles away, because they have been deemed to threaten national security. That is not a civilised way in which to treat a people; there must be something better than that—something more.
I am not advocating a new Gulf war. I am advocating recognition of the Kurdish people, which would make it harder for any Iraqi Government to behave in this way —including the Ba'ath regime of Saddam Hussein, which was consistently opposed by some Opposition Members even when the Government were lending it money and allowing arms to be sold to it through the use of foreign currency.
I hope that tonight the Government will acknowledge the needs of the Kurdish people, who have suffered so tragically in the past 70 years. Their suffering must end; they must be able to live in peace and harmony with their own history and culture, which have contributed so much to the world.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who has a long history of involvement in this problem. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) for taking the initiative in calling this debate in rather curious circumstances.
I want to bite deeply into what I consider to be at the heart of the whole affair—statements made by American and British politicians and by representatives of the American Administration, and the United Nations resolutions, how they interlock and how they should resolve the crisis in Kurdistan.
The principal resolution that we should consider tonight is resolution 688. It demands that
Iraq as a contribution to removing the threat to international peace and security in the region immediately ends this repression.
That resolution was carried shortly after the mass movement of population from the towns and cities of Kurdistan to the boundaries of Turkey and Iran. It


followed a statement by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in America, Mr. Colin Powell, on 31 March, in which he said:
It would not be in the interests of the Government in Baghdad to return to this area in an aggressive way which would threaten these people"—
he was referring to the Kurds—
and cause them to fear for their lives again. The Iraqis should not doubt America's resolve.
I believe that, at that time, that statement was a sign that the United States Administration understood the problem, that it would press for the United Nations resolution—which was pressed for and secured on 5 April —and that there would be subsequent resolutions to enforce resolution 688 in the event that the Iraqis breached the principle of no repression. However, that has not been the case.
I was further fortified in my view that action might be taken when, on 21 May this year—only a few weeks ago —the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), said to the Arab Research Centre that
no-one can ever feel secure while Saddam Hussein remains in Baghdad—any more than we in Europe could have felt secure as long as Hitler survived in Berlin".
They are the words of a British Foreign Office Minister to an Arab audience in London, yet tonight I can refer to innumerable breaches of resolution 688 which have been ignored, and indeed denied, by the Government as late as today. During business questions, the Leader of the House said:
There is no evidence that there is any systematic or widespread repression of the Kurds at present.
That is from a statement made by the Leader of the House today from a written brief. He continued:
We are in close contact with other joint force members to agree ways of providing reassurance to the Kurdish population if and when forces are withdrawn.
I want to draw attention to the breaches which the Leader of the House says are not taking place, but which all the evidence suggests are taking place. I begin with what happened on May 13, when Iraqi forces fired on a United States helicopter and on British Marines inside the protection zone. Ministers were informed of that by field commanders. They know that it happened, and they know that the forces in question were involved in humanitarian aid relief efforts and in the protection of populations in the area. That is an example that has been denied today by a Minister at the Dispatch Box.
On 19 May, 570 people were rounded up and summarily executed in Babylon in a Shia area of the south. I ask the Minister to check the allegation that I make tonight. On 20 May, Iraqi forces attacked a Kurdish aid centre, killing and injuring Kurds. On 22 May, reports stated that up to 500,000 refugees were trapped by Iraqi army road blocks in the region of Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk. Could my allegations be checked? May we have an assurance from the Dispatch Box tonight?
On 23 May, whole areas of Kirkuk were levelled by the Iraqi army as part of its Arabisation programme. Kurdish lives were lost. That matter needs to be checked by Ministers. I was told today by the Leader of the House that, if I can prove or if it can be proved conclusively that the Iraqi Government breached United Nations resolution 688,
we"—

that is the Government—
would obviously consider making a statement to the House, and I can give him that assurance.
I am putting the evidence to the Minister. He can test the evidence, and when it has been substantiated perhaps we can have a Government statement on the matter.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I have been listening extremely intently to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the House will be shocked but not surprised by the catalogue of atrocities that he has recounted. In a sense, was not that catalogue inevitable, when the allied high command decided not to force the unconditional surrender of Iraq, and particularly that of the leader of Iraq, President Saddam Hussein? The Minister of State drew the parallel with Hitler. In that instance, the allies rightly demanded the unconditional surrender of the Nazi regime. Should we not have done the same with Iraq? The future of the Kurds, the Shias and others would have been much brighter than it is today.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That would have been one solution, but not one that I would necessarily have supported. There are other ways—for example, a further United Nations resolution with the threat of force at a later stage, which would have had precisely the same effect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South referred to 60,000 Iraqi troops. I understand that the Republican Guard are now located in the town of Salumaniya. I understand that they were used with tank forces to quell protesters. On 3 June, in Dahuk, Kurds were shot and killed by Ba'athist security party members. On 4 June—only a few days ago—United Nations relief officials reported that Kurdish refugees returning to Irbil had fled back to the Iranian border after Iraqi troops fired on a Kurdish crowd. Innumerable examples of aggression are being reported every day.
I draw the attention of the House to the house arrest and imprisonment of religious leaders, which were reported extensively in the western media and by Reuters on 9 May. I understand that they were Shias. I refer also to the desecration of holy places, the rounding up of clergymen, teachers and their families, and reports of secret police operations in Safwan, which I understand have been brought to the attention of the United Kingdom Government.
There have been reports of abductions in all areas where there is an Iraqi Government presence, and reports of the systematic destruction of Dahuk before the Americans went in. I understand that in that case the Americans were able to witness the damage after they arrived. This week, we have reports of Iraqi forces being deployed in the area of the southern marshes, near the town of Alamara. I understand that those forces have been deployed there with a view to the removal of the population currently living in very temporary conditions in the marshes.
Those incidents are violations of United Nations resolution 688. The Kurdish people are entitled to know what the Government's response will be. We certainly have an undertaking today that there will be a statement in the event that they can be substantiated.
I now refer to sanctions. I want the Government to know that there is a statement on the record to which many of us will hold the Prime Minister. It is a statement that he made on 10 May to the Conservative party conference in Scotland:


Today at this conference I can give the country two assurances. First, Britain with veto any UN resolution designed to weaken the sanctions regime we have set in place for so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power.
We want to be absolutely sure that there will be no weakening of that statement.
I understand that the Prime Minister's statement has been reinforced by statements in the United States. Marlin Fitzwalter, a White House spokesman, said on 21 May:
The United States Government wants the Iraqi people to negotiate a new political compact. It"—
that is to say, the United States Government—
will exert all possible sanctions against Baghdad until Saddam Hussein is removed from power.
That statement was qualified further by Robert Gates, who is an adviser on national security affairs. He said:
Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new Government in Baghdad.
Those are clear statements. We do not expect Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box in the weeks or months to come and, while Saddam Hussein remains in power, say that, in light of the problems in Iraq, it is necessary to ease oil sanctions. That sanction is the Kurds' only hope of securing a democratic Iraq without Saddam Hussein at the helm.
That principle should be reaffirmed from the Dispatch Box. That will signal to the Kurds the resolve of the British Government and, together with the discussions that have been taking place in Washington—in which some of us participated when we visited that city recently—it will clarify the position for the Kurds and strengthen their resolve.
There has been discussion of an international guarantee. While Saddam Hussein is in power, it is utterly impossible for the Kurds to return to their towns and cities, without an international undertaking guaranteeing their future security. The Minister might wish to comment on that aspect of the affair tonight.

Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) referred to the lack of aid for the Kurds and gave some harrowing examples of the present position. However, without denying that, I want to talk about the generosity of the British people in supplying aid to the Kurds—a generosity which has not been matched by the Government on behalf of the British people and has not been adequately assisted by the Government in terms of the organisation and resources that the Government could have offered to the voluntary organisations.
I am not referring to the Simple Truth concerts that were held seven weeks after the crisis emerged, although they were very praiseworthy. I want to stress the spontaneous and immediate response of the British people which occurred as soon as they witnessed the harrowing scenes of the Kurds going into the mountains in Turkey. In towns, neighbourhoods and villages up and down the land, without being asked, mobilised or organised by anyone, apart from one or two people who took initiatives in their own communities, people began to collect the kind of things that they felt the Kurds required. That happened from the beginning of April as soon as those scenes were broadcast on our television screens.
By 4 April, British Aid for the Kurds, one of the largest groups and voluntary organisations to assist the Kurds, had been established. It was established by Lorraine

Goodrich from Devon, who had run an organisation called Parcels for the Gulf. She has received recognition for the work that she has done with Parcels for the Gulf. For example, she is included in a visit that is to take place to Buckingham Palace shortly in recognition of the role that she played. However, she cannot receive any mention from the Government or any recognition of the work that has been done by British Aid for the Kurds. When it came to supplying parcels to the troops, she was a heroine, but when it came to supplying aid to the Kurds, she was an embarrassment to the Government.
Parcels for the Gulf was a straightforward operation. Those who wanted to send materials out to troops carefully parcelled them up, organised them and contacted United Carriers, which said that it would handle the parcels free but in the event charged £2 for collecting up to 15 items, which were then transported. The Ministry of Defence had enough planes going out to the Gulf to be able to take the materials out there.
British Aid for the Kurds collected masses more material than Parcels for the Gulf, but it had massive logistical problems and needed assistance from the Government. It collected foodstuffs, blankets, medicines—which were supplied in response to lists drawn up by the Iranian embassy—and clothing. There is a myth around, which the Overseas Development Administration tends to perpetuate, that all the British Aid for the Kurds did was to collect clothing which turned out not to be needed. That is not the case. The clothing has been trans-shipped and is of value and in use, but the organisation has been involved in sending many other items. It collected tons and tons of material and then had to face the logistics of transporting it.
Transport was initially supplied free within Britain by the National Courier Service. Then Track 29, which works with British Rail and publicises its activities as a private haulage organisation linked with the railways, began to move the bulk of the material. According to Lorraine Goodrich, it was brilliant in the work and the organisation in which it was engaged.
However, it was not simply a matter of moving goods about Britain. As the goods could not be moved quickly, there were massive storage problems. People gave storage facilities. They included businesses, councils, individuals and in some cases, although not very often, the ODA. As it was taking time to ship goods, storage presented great problems. People who had made storage facilities available needed them back. They expected to hand over their facilities for only a week or so. The great problem became the movement overseas of the material that had been collected.
It was not until 24 April, 20 days after the organisation began its activities, that the first material was shifted out of Britain through Iran Air. Iran Air has a regular flight into Heathrow and a 747 was loaded full of material and sent out. Iran Air paid the landing fees for the Heathrow exercises. Although, after protests, the fee was lifted for special flights, the standard flights each Wednesday which have carried masses of material from British Aid for the Kurds have been subject to landing fees.
Only two ODA flights, or flights paid for by the ODA, have been provided for British Aid for the Kurds, but it was not recognised by the ODA that the material was from British Aid for the Kurds. A 707 flight went from Belfast. A 747 Iran Air flight from Heathrow was paid for by the


ODA. That was held to be material collected by the Iranian embassy. In fact, it was British Aid for the Kurds material.
I tabled parliamentary questions in an effort to discover what the Government and the ODA thought had been done by British Aid for the Kurds, but I got virtually a nil return, as though British Aid for the Kurds did not exist. I received a letter from Lord Belstead on behalf of the Northern Ireland Office showing that the material sent from Belfast had been collected under the aegis of British Aid for the Kurds, but that fact does not seem to have been recognised by the ODA.
There have been eight other Iran Air flights. The significance of those is that Iran Air has large 747s, whereas the British Government tend to hire only the smaller capacity 707s when material needs to be sent to such areas. There have been two overland trips with material, one to Turkey in mid-April and one to Iran on 25 April, paid for by the ODA.
In all, 527 tonnes of material has been sent from this country. A further 200 tonnes is at Heathrow and elsewhere. It could readily be moved by Track 29. British Aid for the Kurds believes that if it had not had to put the brakes on because of the difficulty of shifting material it could, without any problem, have collected three times more material, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South said, that material is urgently required in the area.
Next week, British Aid for the Kurds hopes to send out —through Iran, but for northern Iraq—a prefabricated building which will house a 40-bed hospital, with 40 lockers, 200 blankets, 400 sheets, 100 pillow slips, 100 towels and 100 sets of clothing, plus appropriate medicines that are urgently required. The organisation has had to engage in a special financial appeal—it had not previously been involved in collecting money—and has £5,000 from the Welsh organisation Kurdish Relief (Wales), which acts under its umbrella.
Judy Stubbs, of Cutthorpe in my constituency, a northern organiser for British Aid for the Kurds, wrote to the Prime Minister on 17 April offering the Government masses of materials free which they could ship to the Kurds. No answer has yet been received to that letter, although she was writing on behalf of that organisation.
The scale of the operation is revealed in parliamentary written answers to me. Up to 15 May, Save the Children had sent out 207 tonnes of material, Oxfam 143 tonnes and the Red Cross 290 tonnes—all valuable material which had been specifically purchased for special purposes, and I am not decrying that contribution. British Aid for the Kurds had by then sent out 478 tonnes of material. That was done with little publicity. There was no national publicity—the media blackout set me wondering whether a D notice had been applied to the organisation's activities —and only a limited amount of regional coverage.
I have tabled five early-day motions and several written questions about British Aid for the Kurds. In addition to questioning Ministers when statements have been made, I made a short speech in an Opposition day debate on the work of the ODA. There has been no public recognition by the Government of the work of British Aid for the Kurds, despite links with the ODA, to which I shall come.
The ODA has acted in the only way it can act, given the way it is established and the finances available to it, and that is in an ad hoc and limited fashion. That is no fault of the dedicated staff of the ODA disaster unit. Under pressure from the Labour party, the number of staff has risen from four at the start of the disaster to six. When the Bangladesh crisis arose the number rose to nine, and the latest figure of which I am aware is 12.
The Overseas Development Administration has a hangar containing collections of material to be sent to disaster areas. When disasters such as earthquakes occur, it sends out a couple of 707s and purchases food in the nearest local market. That is its usual contribution to disasters, but it has had on its hands three massive disasters for which it has special responsibility. Although the ODA has been trying to handle the problems by increasing its staff, it finds that the problems are beyond it because it is seriously underfunded and there is a lack of political will at Cabinet level to assist it. The ODA even has to pay the Ministry of Defence to take materials to Kurdish areas in the middle east.
The Government are terrified to be seen to have provided insufficient aid. On 9 May, I asked the Minister for Overseas Development for a meeting with British Aid for the Kurds but I have not yet received a reply to my letter. It took until 5 April for the first of the two usual 707 disaster relief flights to leave for Turkey. Not until 8 April did the first 707 fly out to Iran. By 27 April, only four 707s, taking out 35 tonnes each, had flown to Iran. It appears that nothing has ever been sent to Syria, although some 100,000 refugees found their way into that country.
The Prime Minister's initial response to the crisis was his famous remark that he did not recall anyone asking the Kurds to rebel. He then had to react against that statement and suggested a safe havens policy. It may be as well that he did, or the safe havens policy might not have emerged so quickly. The initial safe havens policy did not provide sufficient water, food, medical supplies and other necessities required by the Kurds. We were defending the Kurds, who were then dying from lack of food, supplies and cover in the most abysmal circumstances—in massive contrast with the facilities and organisation provided for the Gulf war, which destabilised Iraq and led to the problems.
When I wrote to the Prime Minister about those problems, I claimed that the Government's response was "tawdry". I do not know whether it was in response to that comment, but he then wrote to the United Nations claiming that its response was "tardy". The difference is that "tawdry" means showy, but worthless, which is exactly the Government's position, while "tardy" means slow to act, move or happen. Those are the definitions given in the Oxford reference dictionary.
The Government's response to the plight of the Kurds has been inadequate. They have tried to pretend that they have done something dramatic, but they have not met the basic humanitarian needs of the Kurds—and when people have moved to meet the needs, the Government have been embarrassed and have attempted to downgrade those actions.
It is not only the Government who have failed to make the necessary statements. To their great discredit, the mass media of this country have failed to pick up the fact that the British public were involved in these humanitarian acts. The British public are ready to respond to disasters


and they expect the Government to act automatically on their behalf and to help the organisations seeking to assist the Kurds and others involved in disasters.
Lorraine Goodrich's letter concludes:
We have now also started an account for Africa after requests to do so from many of our contacts throughout the Country. We shall be taking the ODA's advice and United Nations' … on what they would like done with the money as and when the time arises.
This time, cash is to be collected to try to move matters along because it was found impossible merely to collect materials and goods and to rely on the Government then to move those goods.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on choosing this subject for debate. She has chosen an opportune moment to talk about this subject. When I returned from the Iran-Iraq border in April and told the House what conditions were like at that time, I did not think that I would be talking about the plight of the Kurds again some two months later. I thought that the message would have got across to the Government by then and that, instead of depending on the Opposition—[Interruption.] I hope that the Minister is listening, as it is important that he replies to some of my points. It is not enough just to have a Whip on the Front Bench.
It is amazing that it is left to the Opposition to discuss in this House the plight of the Kurds. I congratulate my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate—my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). They have all in turn touched on points of importance, and I ask the Minister to answer them this evening.
The plight of the Kurds is a matter of some anxiety to those of us who have a long record of discussing in this House the human rights of the Iraqi people. For seven years, I have chaired this country's Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq, and since I entered the House almost seven years ago, I have continually raised the matter in this place. Most of the time, my remarks have fallen on deaf ears. Even after the tragedy of Halabja, the Government continued to double export guarantees to Iraq. All that is water under the bridge, and I hope that our Government and other Governments have learnt from their experiences after 2 August.
Let us face it: until 2 August Saddam Hussein was one of this country's best friends. Whatever we said about violations of human rights in his country was ignored by the Government. It was all very well to make weak protests after the tragedy of Halabja; but to behave as though Saddam Hussein was a person to be trusted and whose friendship was to be valued was little short of a disgrace.
It is not good enough for the Government to wash their hands of the plight of the Kurds. It is amazing that we were given statements on the Gulf war almost every other day. It is surprising that the Government have not seen fit to make a statement about the Kurds. I do not recall any statements since the debate that we initiated a week before the recess on the way that the Government had dealt with the three major tragedies which had confronted them and the Overseas Development Administration. The response to those tragedies was completely inadequate. I would

welcome an immediate statement on what the Government propose to do to secure the safety of the Kurds who have returned, those who are returning, and those who are still on the borders of Turkey and Iraq and Iran and Iraq.
There has been much coverage of the plight of the Kurds on the Turkey-Iraq border but little about the plight of those on the Iran-Iraq border. Perhaps it has escaped the notice of many people, since the pictures have disappeared from our screens and the cameras are concentrating on other issues, that there are still 1 million Iraqi refugees in Iran. This week the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concern for those people, and spoke particularly about what would happen to them if they returned to their homes. There has been little talk about what will happen to those people who do not even have access to the safe havens that are available to some people on the Turkey-Iraq border.
Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who attempted to leave Iraq during the Kurdish refugee crisis when they fled from the wrath of Saddam Hussein are trapped in a no-man's land between Iraq and Iran. They have not reached the Iranian border and are still on the borders of Iraq. They are staying in what can only be described as huge gipsy encampments on the rubble of some of the towns and villages that Saddam Hussein destroyed in 1987.
Those people are not in receipt of international aid either inside Iraq or on the borders. That is because they are not covered by any of the aid agencies and no aid, apart from that provided by people who have returned to the country, is available to them. Some of them are not able to return to their homes because the Iraqis have blocked the accesses to towns and villages. The Minister must address the problems of those people.
Apart from the necessity to increase aid and to meet the requirements of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other UN agencies that are calling for assistance, the Government must foresee what will happen when the allies leave the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington has documented the violations of the various resolutions that were passed by the Security Council. What do the Government intend to do to enforce those resolutions?
On 30 May I wrote to the Foreign Secretary asking him to say what date, if any, had been set for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraqi Kurdistan. I said that reports of an imminent allied withdrawal had caused grave anxiety among Kurdish refugees who had strong grounds to fear for their safety if allied protection were removed without the strongest possible international guarantees for their security. I have not received a reply to that letter. As many of my hon. Friends have said, we need tonight from the Government a clear and unequivocal statement that British troops will not be withdrawn from Iraqi Kurdistan until the safety of the refugees is guaranteed. It would help to reassure the refugees, speed up the process of resettlement and so enhance the prospects of an early withdrawal of British troops in the proper circumstances.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mrs. Clwyd: Such a statement would discourage Saddam Hussein from deliberately stalling the talks with the Kurdish leadership in the hope that allied troops will


eventually be removed before a satisfactory agreement on autonomy is reached. That is the fear of us all who have been in close contact with the Kurdish negotiators. It is felt that it is a deliberate tactic of Saddam Hussein to slow down the peace talks until the allies have left the country so that he can resume his repression of the Kurds and other groups within Iraq. Those of us who follow events closely believe that that is the tactic that he is following.
When I was in Iraq at the beginning of April I had a conversation with Jalal Talabani, who said that the Turkish leaders would be negotiating for autonomy for the Kurds within Iraq and for democratic elections for the whole of Iraq. The Kurds believe, as does everyone else, that there will be no safety for them, no peace and no stability—for them or any of the other oppressed groups of Iraq—unless there is democracy within the country. They would most of all like to see the removal of Saddam Hussein. That is true of those who are negotiating with him as well as of many of the other Iraqi opposition groups within Iraq. They feel, of course, that the rest of the world has let them down in their attempts to achieve that end.
Over the past six months I have attended many international conferences in Stockholm, Paris and Washington. I have no doubt that the Kurds were given a nod and a wink and much else besides, especially by the Americans, to go ahead and fight the forces of Saddam Hussein after the end of the Gulf war. It is to the shame of the west that it was not able to secure the safety of the Kurds when they were fighting the airpower of Saddam Hussein.
The Kurds are under no illusion that if they conclude an agreement with Saddam Hussein without international guarantees, and without ensuring that there are free and democratic elections for the whole of Iraq, they can never be secure in an Iraq in which Saddam Hussein remains. I hope that the Minister will apply his mind to the questions which have been raised.
I have no doubt that if the allies pull out of Iraq in the next few weeks, as it is believed they will unless the Minister can tell us otherwise, Saddam Hussein will resume his oppression and persecution of the Kurds and of other people within his country who are opposed to him. I mention especially the Shi'a, who are in particular difficulties, the Assyrians and many others who over the years have opposed Saddam Hussein within Iraq. They should not be forgotten because we are talking about the plight of the Kurds. I am certain that, unless we get assurances from the Minister tonight, this will signal the go-ahead for a new wave of repression, torture and killing in the country where so many people have suffered under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
Over the years I have raised these issues in the House. At times I did not believe some of the horror stories coming out of Iraq. I asked some of the people who came to me with those horror stories to check them out, but now I have no doubt that what they told me was an understatement of what was happening inside Iraq. It will be to our shame if we fail to heed what has happened in the past and do not ensure the protection of those persecuted people in Iraq in the future.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on raising this important and interesting subject, which has occupied many hon. Members from both sides of the House—for obvious reasons. It is a complicated matter which has already developed a considerable history during the past few weeks and months. I shall try to do justice to the contributions of Opposition Members, but I have some of my own comments to make, and I hope that Opposition Members will recognise that I should be entitled to do that in the time available to me.
As is well known, with our allies in the United Nations, we reacted swiftly to seek the backing of the whole international community in demanding that Iraq should stop the repression of its people and allow the humanitarian relief effort to proceed unhindered. The Security Council adopted resolution 688 on 5 April to do exactly that. The resolution condemned Iraq's repression of its civilian population, the consequences of which threatened the
international peace and security in the region
and demanded access by international humanitarian organisations. It went on to ask the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq, using all the resources at his disposal, and appealed to all member states to contribute to his efforts.
The hon. Members for Bristol, South, for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) talked about the aid levels. Since 4 April—during the past two months—the British Government have provided £62 million-worth of aid. Since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August, the total amount of aid given amounts to £81 million. That involves 100 United Kingdom volunteers working on the Turkish border, 510 tonnes of relief supplies flown to the Turkish border and 625 tonnes flown to Iran. I do not see how the hon. Member for Bristol, South can describe our response as lacking in substance.

Ms. Primarolo: The Minister will know that we contributed about £2·5 billion to £3 billion to the war and the liberation of the Kuwaitis, of whom fewer than 1 million were resident in Kuwait. He will also know that we are talking about considerably more Kurds than that. When I talked about the lack of aid, it was in comparison to, first, the level of need and, secondly, the resources that we were able to deploy in the war against Iraq over Kuwait.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I listen to what the hon. Lady says, but I think that, on any reasonable judgment, our contribution has been immense.
It is our wish to ensure that the objectives of Security Council resolution 688 are effectively achieved. On 8 April, as we know, the Prime Minister put to his European collegues in the special European council in Luxembourg a proposal to establish the safe havens. The proposals received the enthusiastic backing of our European partners, and in the days that followed there were intensive discussions with our friends and allies about that.
On 16 April President Bush announced that the United States, the United Kingdom and France would send


troops to northern Iraq, but it was made clear at the time that the deployment was a temporary measure to meet an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian need and to allow the refugees to return to their homes in conditions of safety.
The aims of the deployment were fully consistent with what had gone before. On 18 April, the Secretary of State for Defence spelled out in a statement to the House what British forces would be committed.
The logistical and practical problems faced by the military and the humanitarian relief organisations deployed in northern Iraq have been formidable. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the remarkable skill and dedication shown by all involved in so effectively meeting the needs of the refugees. The progress since the deployment took place has been truly remarkable.
As many as 2 million Kurds, Christians and Turcomans may have fled their homes in fear at the end of March. Military and non-governmental organisation personnel on the ground have not only provided the conditions of security which have allowed many of the refugees on the border with Turkey to return home, but have helped to feed them, establish sources of clean water, dramatically improve hygiene and provide medical services.
Here I wish to pay tribute to the efforts of the Governments of Turkey and Iran, in contrast to what was said earlier. They have responded to the need on a huge scale, and we have provided assistance to both Governments as best we can.
The humanitarian needs of the refugees from Iraq have now largely been met.

Mrs. Clwyd: No.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Let me develop my point; then I will accept an intervention.
The airlift of the remaining refugees from the last camp at Cukurca began earlier today, and by the end of the week they should have been relocated in longer-term accommodation in Turkey. It has been agreed—it is important that I refer to this—that the United Nations should take over responsibility for the refugee operation from coalition forces from 7 June. Those of our troops who have been engaged in providing humanitarian relief to the refugees have finished their job and will be brought home.
But there remain the other troops in Kurdish Iraq. The House will, I hope, agree that coalition forces cannot remain in northern Iraq indefinitely. Their deployment was intended as a temporary measure to meet an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian need. It is right that that responsibility should now be passed to the United Nations, but we would be failing in our duty if we were to ignore the situation of the Kurds, and we are doing everything that we can to ensure that the callous persecution that they have suffered at the hands of Saddam Hussein does not happen again.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister believe that Security Council resolution 688, as it relates to the repression of the Kurds, has been breached?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry, but I shall deal later with the allegations that the hon. Gentleman made.
First among the measures to be taken will be the deployment of United Nations relief workers. The

memorandum of understanding between the Iraqi Government and the United Nations provides for the establishment of United Nations humanitarian centres throughout Iraq. The presence of UN personnel, whose task will be to work among refugees, should pro vide considerable reassurance. We hope that a significant UN presence will soon be in place throughout northern Iraq.
Prince Sadruddin, the Secretary-General's executive delegate, whom my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met in London earlier this week, is well aware of the need to get UN staff on the ground quickly. The UN relief effort will be complimented by the presence of up to 500 United Nations field services officers, drawn from the ranks of the UN security force in new York and Geneva and other sources. We see their task as being to monitor the situation in Iraq—I beg the hon. Member for Workington to listen carefully—and they will be able to report any abuses to the Secretary-General, who will be free to take them up with the Iraqi authorities and, if necessary, the Security Council. Some 47 field service officers and 162 United Nations personnel are already in Iraq and more will be sent shortly.
The hon. Member for Workington made some greatly exaggerated allegations. The field service officers will report abuses to the Secretary-General, who will be in a position to take them up, if he feels it appropriate, with the Security Council. That is the appropriate way of dealing with the matter.
We do not expect the Iraqi Government to hinder the relief operation. We and our allies would view any attack by the Iraqis as completely unacceptable, and there have been only minor isolated incidents so far.

Ms. Primarolo: Is it correct to summarise the position by saying that the UN will monitor the atrocities, whereas the task of the allied forces is stop them occurring? If so, does the Minister accept that it would be better to stop them occurring rather than to monitor them?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have explained the position. The hon. Lady knows that our actions in the conflict with Iraq and in establishing the safe havens in northern Iraq have been consistent with, and derived support from, United Nations resolutions. We have operated on that basis.
I recognise the fear of the Kurds, which the hon. Member for Bristol, South mentioned. We recognise the justice of the Kurdish case, in which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has much interest and experience going back many years. We have made clear our support for autonomy for the Kurdish people and our respect for human rights, and I am happy to repeat that. That is what the Kurds want; they are not calling for a separate Kurdish state.
We hope that a satisfactory agreement between the Kurdish leadership and the Iraqi Government will be reached. Sadly, Saddam Hussein gives the impression that he seeks to drag out negotiations in order to buy time. He should realise that the only way to resolve the problem, which has given rise to considerable international condemnation of his regime, is to respond generously to the legitimate aspirations of the Kurdish people.
In our contacts with Kurdish leaders, we stressed the importance of reaching an early agreement. However, the Kurds' suspicions of the Iraqi regime have been amply


justified by its past actions. We shall be working to ensure that any agreement is properly underpinned by the United Nations.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley suggested that, before 2 August 1990, Iraq was a country with which we were best friends. Does she not remember the condemnation that the British Conservative Government expressed four or five years ago after the appalling use of weapons at Halabja? That incident was raised in the UN Security Council by the British Government. Is that the act of a country with which one can say we were in friendship? That is an absurd proposition.

Mr. Corbyn: I recall the British Government's condemnation of the Iraqi Government in 1988 following their chemical attacks on Halabja. However, I recall also that, less than a month later, a substantial export credit loan was given to British companies to allow them to trade with Iraq, on top of all the other loans that had been made available. Does the Minister accept that the problem of the Kurdish people must be dealt with, and that requires pressure from other Governments in the region, including Turkey, if the awful horrors of the past few months are not to be visited upon the Kurdish people again in the future?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept that. I certainly cannot accept that there was any degree of friendship between the British Government and the Iraqi Government before 2 August last year.
An agreement between the Kurds and the Iraqi Government would be a great step forward, but it cannot be a precondition for the withdrawal of coalition forces. We must look at other ways of providing the Kurds with the assurance that they need. We are discussing with our allies what arrangements might appropriately be made to

deter Saddam Hussein from further aggression—perhaps by the stationing of military forces in the region but outside Iraq.
I want to make it clear that, if the Iraqi Government were to embark on a further round of repression, the Government would not hesitate to have recourse to the Security Council, to seek a further resolution authorising action to halt it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not saying anything particularly new, but if it gives satisfaction to the hon. Member I am most pleased. I am more than happy to underline and endorse the Prime Minister's commitment to the recent Conservative party conference.
The British Government's response to the refugee crisis in Iraq has been swift, decisive, and effective. Now that the immediate humanitarian needs of the refugees have been met, we are moving into a new phase. It would not be right for coalition forces to remain in northern Iraq indefinitely, but the Government will work actively to create the climate of security and reassurance necessary to allow the Kurds to rebuild their lives and to ensure respect for their fundamental human and political rights.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Is the Minister giving way?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have finished, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has sat down.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Ten o'clock.